Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend talks a lot of common sense, as ever. I will be saying something shortly about our plans to reform human rights. One thing that we can do is to avoid that kind of abuse of the system, on top of the efforts that the Home Secretary is making; since January 2019, we have removed close to 10,000 foreign national offenders, and the early removal scheme in the Nationality and Borders Bill will allow foreign national offenders to be removed earlier.

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

Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) steadfastly refused to confirm that the UK would remain in the European convention on human rights. This morning, we read that the UK will do so. Can the Secretary of State confirm that we will remain a signatory and will continue to respect the provisions of the ECHR in full?

[Dominic Raab]

I have already made it clear before this House that we plan to stay, and will stay, a state party to the European convention.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The former Justice Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), warned that any attempt to alter the Human Rights Act would make the UK less secure. Yesterday, GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 warned that changing the Human Rights Act would make it more difficult to fight terrorism. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of what they have said? As he launches his consultation today, will he commit himself to taking very seriously what senior figures in our security services have said?

[Dominic Raab]

I am not going to respond to claims or anonymous reports in the papers about what the security services may or may not say, but I am absolutely clear that the reforms that we will take will strengthen our protection in a whole range of areas that have been undermined by the Human Rights Act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, but we will not be abolishing the House of Lords any time soon. Peerages, as I said, reflect long-standing contributions to civic life and give these people an opportunity to put something back and contribute to public life.

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

At last week’s Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) asked the Prime Minister if he would

“stop sending big-value donors to the House of Lords”.

The Prime Minister replied:

“Until you get rid of the system by which the trades union barons fund other parties…we need to continue with the system by which public-spirited people give donations.”

Mr Speaker, I believe that the Prime Minister’s answer comes dangerously close to an admission of selling peerages, in direct contravention of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, and is worthy of further investigation. Will the Minister undertake that investigation or does he think it is sufficiently serious to involve the Metropolitan police?

[Nigel Adams]

Again, the answer is no. One of the most valued aspects of the House of Lords is the experience that Members bring to their work. The idea that successful businesspeople and philanthropists who contribute to political causes should be disqualified from sitting in the legislature is nonsense. There is no link between party donations and nominations to sit in the House of Lords. [Laughter.] The law has been followed at all times. The police have said that there is no evidence that the law has been broken.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I admire the Minister’s ability to say that with a straight face. It is disappointing but not surprising that he appears to believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with the system. Maybe he can take this opportunity to explain why, since 2010, no fewer than 22 of the Tories’ biggest backers, who have donated a total of £54 million to their coffers, have been elevated to the House of Lords. Will he explain why he believes that stuffing the House of Lords full of wealthy donors, cronies, political allies and those unwilling or unable to be elected somehow enhances and improves our democracy?

[Nigel Adams]

Again, successful businesspeople should not be disqualified from sitting in the legislature. The hon. Gentleman made a point about the number of people who have been appointed since 2010. I gently point out that there are just over 800 Members of the House of Lords and 408 of them were appointed by the Opposition when they were in power between 1997 and 2010.

Elections Bill (Second sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

Q My question for both witnesses is about the accountability of the Electoral Commission and the part of the legislation we are looking at on that issue. It is a balance between parliamentary accountability for the commission but also independence of the commission to be able to do its job. As it stands, the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has an in-built Government majority, with five Members from the governing party and three Opposition MPs—I declare an interest as a member of that committee. Do you feel that is effective and what do you think will be the impact of adding another Government MP to that committee? Do you think the Electoral Commission is currently suitably held to account by Parliamentarians?

Professor Howarth: Perhaps I should answer that more than Fraser. I do not think there should be any circumstances in which there is a Government majority on the Speaker’s Committee. It was set up not to have that, but the balance in the House that determines which party gets which Chair of which Select Committee has an effect. I think the legislation has to be adjusted to ensure that the definition of who is on the Speaker’s Committee is not affected by those sorts of changes. The whole idea is for there to be consensus on electoral matters across the parties. That is the main objection to having ministerial guidance in the first place—a Minister from any particular party might be seen to say something in the interest of the party. Similarly, the Speaker’s Committee should never have a single-party majority. The legislation should make that clear.

Fraser Campbell: I agree with what Professor Howarth says about majorities on the committee. Members have to bear in mind the distinction between accountability and direction. It is one thing for the Electoral Commission to be accountable to Parliament, through the Speaker’s Committee and potentially through other mechanisms, in terms of explaining itself and being questioned about decisions it has made or its performance. It is another thing for it to be directed to do particular things.

That is the concern that arises in terms of the statement of principles. One example of that is that it envisages the ministerial statement and directing priorities. One can easily think of examples where it might be quite improper for particular priorities to be set; for example, if there was a hypothetical party that drew disproportionate amounts of support from older people as opposed to students. One can imagine why that hypothetical party might wish to make it a priority for the Electoral Commission to assist in increasing turnout among the elderly, and on whatever grounds it came up with, deprioritise facilitating students living in multiple households to register to vote. If that was a direction given to the commission, that would not really be accountability at all but interference. It would be much better for the commission to be allowed to get on with what are very well established and understood statutory objectives, and for Parliament through whatever means to hold it to account on its performance.

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

Q My question is in two parts. On the plan to give Ministers more control of the Electoral Commission, David, were these plans ever discussed or floated when you were a commissioner between 2008 and 2018? To both of you, why do you think they have now appeared in the Bill?

Professor Howarth: To answer the first question, this would have been unthinkable in my time as an electoral commissioner, and also that was during a time when there had been a Conservative Prime Minister for the whole time. I do not think anyone would have ever imagined this was a good idea. It is an open goal for the opponents of western democracy. If you are President Xi, you might think this is the kind of thing you want—all the institutions of the state lined up behind the governing party—but not in this country. It is completely unthinkable.

As to where it has come from, it is beyond my time in office. All I can say is it looks as if it has arisen out of certain resentments in certain quarters about decisions the commission has made that people disagree with, and the Government must have been scrambling around for ways of satisfying that desire for revenge and come up with possibly the mildest version they can think of, but even this version is outrageous.

Fraser Campbell: I would not wish to make a window into the Minister’s soul, but I think all Members on all sides would want to bear in mind that if they are in Government, they will one day be out of Government, and one would not want to have a position where whatever party happens to be in Government is able to take advantage of an opportunity to influence or exert pressure on the commission while the sun is shining, only to see the boot on the other foot when they are out of power.

One sees this, for example, in the United States where it is very nice for the governing party to be able to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, but it feels much less promising when they happen to be out of power. In my position, it is much better to have a properly independent process, which we have in the courts here. We do not have the same business of political nomination of judges. We would lose something of value were we to have, in any sense, a politicised, oscillating Electoral Commission, whose priorities change depending on who is setting the direction from time to time. That would not be in the long-term interests of any party.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Q The Bill seeks to address the integrity of elections. Would you say this is the biggest problem we face in our elections currently? Are there any other concerns you think the Bill should address or any other proposals or measures you think should be included? Do you have any other concerns about the Bill that you have not been able to address?

Fraser Campbell: Shall I go first this time? I am grateful it is a broad invitation. I think the integrity of elections is not an overwhelming concern in UK electoral law. There have been pockets of extremely bad practice that have been exposed and investigated, and have obtained a high profile, but generally the UK happily leads the world in this respect and should not be shy about that. There are problems though, which are along the themes of needing to encourage broader and freer participation, because that is the best prophylactic against domination by particular vested interests. The explanatory notes rightly draw attention to some dangers of foreign interference or interference by the very wealthy, but one of the things one can do to discourage or balance that out is to have as broad a plurality of participation as possible.

It worries me that certain provisions of the Bill are potentially apt to have a chilling effect on participation by small parties, or those who are not parties at all but are legitimate pressure groups, charities, NGOs, trade unions and so on. An example of that is the power to be given under clause 23 to a Minister, albeit subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to effectively proscribe the types of organisations that can become registered third parties. That is important because, if an organisation is not a registered third party it is subject to a much lower spending limit. The pre-legislative material that I have seen does not give any explanation as to why there needs to be a power to limit the types of organisation that can become registered third parties. I can see why there might need to be some sort of power to quickly expand the list, if it turns out someone is inadvertently excluded.

The only rationale I have seen for this provision, generally, is to clamp down on foreign interference. If that is the case, it does not provide any justification for Ministers to have the power to exclude numbers of categories from that list, which includes trade unions, charities, UK companies and unincorporated associations. It would be of benefit to the process if this Committee were to examine, with the Government, the rationale for that procedure.

There is a tension between that procedure and a general desire, which is expressed by some parties, to avoid lawyers being too involved in the political process. I can tell you, as a matter of simple law, that if a decision to exclude an organisation was made under such a power, it would be more susceptible to challenge by judicial review than if such a decision was made under primary legislation. As a matter of basic law, judges are naturally much less deferential to secondary legislation, because it has not gone through the rigmarole and process that we are engaged in today. It would be a jamboree for lawyers—in a selfish, personal sense I would welcome that—but it has not been explained and it could have a chilling effect. Even if the power was not actively used, people would be participating as registered third parties not knowing what the situation might be in the future. I think that would disincentivise the plurality of participation that can balance out foreign interference and other less welcome vested interests.

Professor Howarth: I agree with Fraser on clause 23; the delegated powers memorandum—[Inaudible.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Thank you very much for joining us. This morning, Richard Mawrey talked about the widescale postal vote fraud in Birmingham. What have you done to tackle that? What in the Bill helps you to further tackle that wide-scale postal vote fraud, and is anything missing from the Bill that would help you were it to be added?

Rob Connelly: I am not sure that something is missing from the Bill. What always surprises me is the number of postal votes that we get handed in on the day. We are talking perhaps 3,000 to 4,000 at a parliamentary election. We also recorded, as part of what happened, how many people brought the postal votes and in what numbers, and we often asked for names and addresses. There is no legal obligation to tell us, but in case there was a follow-up we tried to address that problem.

After the problems we had in Birmingham, the law was changed to deal with some of the issues that arose. To be honest, I am not aware that we have had major wide-scale problems in Birmingham, but it is not something that we can be overly confident can never happen again; it may do. We just have to be extra vigilant. That is where the joint working comes into play.

Restricting the number of postal votes that you can bring into a polling station may help, but we need to understand in a bit more detail the reasons behind it, because one of my concerns with the Bill is that you might be restricted to bringing in two postal votes into a polling station, but what is stopping you going to another polling station in the constituency and handing in another two? I also worry that by limiting it to such a small number we are potentially disenfranchising the honest person as opposed to your determined fraudster. A bit of work could be done around that.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Would it be safe to say that your biggest headache would be around postal voting, and being able to police how postal votes are managed and handled?

Rob Connelly: No, because with postal voting at the moment—I always put that qualification in—we have not had any issues. This is where we work closely with political parties, because we share information on how many we are getting back by ward and by constituency, so that they can spot any potential areas. We have always had a system in place that, if we have more than six new postal applications from a particular household, that would be flagged up and we would have a closer look. We have always put in measures to raise red flags. Individual registration and having to supply, for newer registers, national insurance numbers and dates of birth is helpful. We have the IT equipment whereby we do the signature checking, which is, again, very helpful. IT has moved on a lot since 2004.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Finally, how widespread have you found personation at polling booths since you joined the council in the early 2000s?

Rob Connelly: It is not a major issue that has been raised with me by either electors or political parties. We did keep some stats in polling stations as part of how to restore confidence in Birmingham. We would record, when someone came in, why they could not vote—for example, it could be that they come in and their surname is already marked off on the register. We have to do a number of years of research into that, looking, checking the numbers.

The two biggest reasons are, first, it was a simple error on the part of the poll clerk—often, it was a big family and they have just put the mark against the wrong person—and, sometimes, they came in but were marked as a postal voter. Again, it was a simple case of forgetting that they had applied for a postal vote. When we got that information back, we undertook that we would look at those cases, to establish whether there was any possible personation or other types of fraud. However, as I say, we have not picked that up and it has not come through to me from any source that personation has been a major problem. We cannot say that it has never happened or does not happen, because we do not know, but I am fairly confident that if it were widespread at a local level, it would have been picked up by party activists who would report it to us and to West Midlands police.

[The Chair]

Louise, do you have anything to add to that?

Louise Round: Just to echo what Rob said: the incidents of personation in all the years that I have been doing this have been zero—at least, that we have known about. There is a question about whether the cost and extra administrative burden of voter ID is strictly speaking necessary. As Rob said, it does not mean that it does not happen; we just do not know whether it has ever happened.

Elections Bill (Second sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Chloe Smith]

[Brendan O’Hara]

[Brendan O’Hara]

[Brendan O’Hara]

[The Chair]

Elections Bill (First sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

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

Q I have a couple of questions, directed to both of you, but I will start with Lord Pickles. You said that there have been some shocking examples of postal vote fraud, and you gave some examples. However, you said that it is not endemic in the system but that the system is vulnerable. Do you think that, with the system being vulnerable, we are missing an opportunity to tighten up on postal vote fraud in the Bill? It does not seem to be a huge part of the Bill. Given what you have said, the Bill seems to be almost looking in the wrong places to tighten up on fraud. Where could we tighten up more on the postal vote fraud that you say is not endemic but to which the system is vulnerable?

Lord Pickles: Thank you. That gives me a brief opportunity to clarify the remarks. If postal vote fraud was widespread, it would be too late, and this place would be stuffed with people with a vested interest in keeping a vulnerable system. It is vulnerable. We have delineated a number of court cases, over several years, and showed how vulnerable it is. What we want to do is to close that.

Obviously, it is up to the Committee to move various amendments further to restrict postal votes. The recommendations that you have here plough a middle route between taking away from things that people have become very used to and restricting too much. For example, having to renew every three years is important; restricting the number of people who can handle postal votes is important. As Richard says, postal votes are by their very nature more vulnerable than votes at the polling station. Things like carousel fraud are no less possible, but they are hard to do.

You have to come to a judgment. Certainly, I would urge you to put down some amendments to test the Government on restrictions on postal ballots. However, in many ways the horse has bolted on that—people have become used to it. Going back so that everybody voted in person, except in cases of illness or business, would probably be a step too far, but it would certainly be worth putting down a probing amendment. Obviously, I am not saying to my Conservative colleagues that they have to vote for it, but nevertheless it would be a good debate.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q The problem that you have both identified is around postal voting, and the examples of personation that you have given have been pretty few and far between. It is fair to say from what you have said that where the system is most vulnerable and weak is around postal voting.

Richard, you were talking about a particular culture that existed in Tower Hamlets and manipulation by religious means. You said yourself that that was an extreme case. The Tower Hamlets example has been used in previous debates to claim that voter ID cards are absolutely necessary. In your opinion, how would voter ID cards at polling stations have changed what you witnessed at Tower Hamlets?

Richard Mawrey: Tower Hamlets would be a bad example. In Tower Hamlets, as I said, they virtually ticked every box of electoral offence. But for my being rather kind-hearted, they would have ticked the intimidation box as well—they ticked them all. Voter fraud played a very small part, funnily enough, in Tower Hamlets. There was a handful of personation cases. Because they were orchestrated by the candidate, they were enough, as it were, to get him over the line.

If you as the candidate, or as an agent of the candidate, procure one false vote, you are out. It is all or nothing: you do not have to show that it made a difference. There was simply a handful. I regret to say that, in that case, a number of people who were carrying out these frauds by registering themselves at the wrong address were people who were councillors who lived outside the borough and registered in the borough, but that was a rare occurrence.

Birmingham, in particular, Slough and Woking were all cases that were purely postal fraud. Voter ID at polling stations, frankly, is neither here nor there. Personation at polling stations is very rare indeed, because it is so dangerous—if someone turns up to a polling station and says, “I am Mr Jones of Acacia Avenue”, and somebody says, “I know Mr Jones; you are not him”, the next thing is a policeman’s hand on his shoulder and he’s up at the local Crown court—but postal vote personation, whereby you are voting in the name of a non-existent person or a person who lives somewhere else, is very difficult to detect and to trace. It is only when you have a full-scale petition that it comes to light and you are able to unseat someone.

Voter ID in polling stations is all right, but voter ID for the purposes of registering votes would require checking. If you do not have a mechanism to check—even just to spot check—then registering people at addresses where they do not live, which is the key to that sort of postal fraud, which is a form of personation, voter ID is going to be quite difficult to operate. What you need is simply to check that if Mr Jones is registered at 1 Acacia Avenue, there is a Mr Jones living there. That takes money and resources. We do not have an identity card system in this country, for good or ill, so there is no way, obviously, of cross-checking that. Voter ID only takes you so far with postal votes. Beyond that, the system is vulnerable, and necessarily vulnerable.

Lord Pickles: Thank you for the really interesting question. I did not recommend photo ID, but I think things have moved on since then. I was very interested to see that the Government said that 98% of the population has some form of photo ID. To emphasise the importance of voting, to be able to demonstrate that you are that person by producing, in my case, my bus pass—I could not use my driving licence, because I still have a paper one; I am that old—or something from work is a very sensible process. It occurs to me that the 2% who do not have any kind of photo ID might in itself have a wider use beyond voting in a polling station. It is an important check and a way of emphasising the importance of the vote. If Barack Obama can sign for his ballot paper, which might be an alternative, it is not unreasonable to have the same level as we have for getting a pair of Nike trainers from Amazon.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q That is a purely subjective view. The fact that you did not recommend photo ID in your report and it is now being introduced would suggest that it is a solution seeking a problem.

Lord Pickles: No, not really. I did bear in mind what had happened in Northern Ireland. I am sure you will recall that it started with paper ID for the first few years and then went over to photo ID. A lot of things have happened. Essentially, what the Government are suggesting, so far as I can follow what they are doing, is that we are moving to the Northern Ireland system without an intermediate stage with paper ID—

[Brendan O’Hara]

Q Sorry, Lord Pickles, can I interrupt? Are you seriously suggesting that the situation in the United Kingdom in 2021 bears any similarity to the situation in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s?

Lord Pickles: In what respect? I do not understand the question.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Well, you say we are moving to the Northern Ireland system. The Northern Ireland system was introduced for very specific reasons. Are you saying we should move to the Northern Ireland system because there are similarities between what is happening here in 2021 and what was happening in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s?

Lord Pickles: I think you are putting words in my mouth. My remarks on Northern Ireland were restricted to the point that at first there was a paper check, and then photo ID. The Government are suggesting that we move on to photo ID now. What has changed since 2016 is the growth of photo ID. It is important to be able to demonstrate who you are when you go to the polling station, not just in order to deal with personation but to emphasise the importance of the vote. No doubt you will spend many happy hours together debating that point. I shall read the debates with great interest.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

Q I wanted to pick up on your point about policing, Mr Mawrey. You have been very critical, in both your judgments and your previous evidence to Parliament, of the police and their determination not to get involved. My question is twofold. What does that imply about how many cases have not been brought that perhaps ought to have been? Does the Bill empower the police, and would you expect them to be more willing to be involved in future?

Richard Mawrey: Those are two separate questions. One was whether the police are empowered. They have the necessary powers now. In the aftermath of my critical remarks in the Birmingham judgment, a number of forces had designated officers to deal with the issue, but for various reasons, there were never enough officers for some to be spared to deal with electoral matters only, so they tended to be somebody who added this issue to his or her other duties—say, with the fraud squad, or whatever it was. They did not have the time or resources, because obviously this was regarded—not unreasonably—by some police forces as being very low priority. They tend to think, “This is a squabble between politicians. Let them sort it out.”

In certain areas—Tower Hamlets is a good example—the police force was wary of the local politicians, who were, of course, only too anxious, particularly in the case of Lutfur Rahman, to meet any sort of criticism or investigation with cries of “Institutional racism!”, mentions of the Macpherson report, and all that. The police were wary of dealing with that. They have the powers; whether they have the resources and the will is an entirely different matter.

On whether lots of cases are going undetected, the answer is undoubtedly yes. It is very difficult to prove fraud, and when you have proved it, it is very difficult and time-consuming to prove who benefited from it. In some systems—in Australia, for example—you can prove fraud until you are blue in the face, but you no longer prove who benefited from it, so anyone elected with fraudulent votes stays elected. That is obviously not a good idea. What you see in the cases that I try is the tip of the iceberg, and those cases exist only because concerned citizens are prepared to put their money—their houses, sometimes—on the line in order to fight that fraud. You can end up, as the petitioners did in Tower Hamlets, with a large order for costs against someone who cheerfully declares themselves bankrupt, and you find yourself having spent a fortune doing what you think to be right, only to see none of that money back.

What the Bill does not deal with, although it might have done, is any reform of the process of electoral petitions, trying disputed elections, and all that—things on which Lord Pickles and I have given evidence on other occasions. I am sorry that it does not deal with that, but it is a big, long Bill; perhaps you will get round to it later. The idea that it should be made easier for elections to be challenged by citizens or candidates, and less expensive—

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

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

[Mrs Miller]

My hon. Friend makes points that I am sure those listening to that debate will be pondering. In a day and age when electronic mail, not postal mail, is the norm, they will be asking what the Government are doing to ensure that our electoral system is modernised. I applaud the Government for all they are doing on voter identification. It is such an important thing but it has been sadly lacking. This is a reforming Government in that area, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will do all she can to continue that reforming zeal in her work.

Let me pull together two other points that are allied to what we have been discussing. I think a great deal will be needed in returning to the status quo ante. The vast majority of Members do not remember the status quo ante—some of us do, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and perhaps one or two others such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell, but there are not many of us left. Ensuring that the House and Members understand those conventions that are not formalised in law will be something of a challenge. I am sure the Minister is up to that challenge, but it is something we need to address. She has rightly made a number of comments on this issue—she has written a letter to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and there are pieces of correspondence and an opportunity for debate—but as we move forward we need a settled view of the conventions.

Finally, on the wash-up, the day that a Prime Minister announces a general election is not the start of the general election campaign, and hon. Members need to take a much closer look, perhaps through colleagues who sit on the relevant Committees, as to how we can get better control over what is considered in that wash-up session. There are often a few deals regarding what legislation will pass through Parliament before the election campaign, and perhaps that would be better done after the election, rather than before. We should be considering such matters, with a focus on shortening the election campaign to something that is not just best for one set of people, but best for our democracy.

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

I will hopefully delight the Committee by trying to speed things up a little, and I will not detain Members for long.

I agree with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) that the Bill smacks of a Government who are still smarting from the events of 2019. I suggest that perhaps anger and revenge are no way to govern, and hopefully the House will help the Government to look beyond their bruised pride and get to a situation far beyond this Bill. Although in and of itself clause 1 may look fairly innocuous, and when taken in isolation might even be seen as trivial and almost unimportant, I caution the Committee that when viewed alongside other legislation currently going through this place—the Elections Bill, for example, and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—we are witnessing a strategy on the part of the Government to centralise power and control with the Executive at the expense of this House. Some clauses in Bill, including clause 1, give more power to the Executive, strip parliamentarians of their powers, and deny the judiciary the ability to scrutinise what they are doing, while at the same time eroding the public’s right to protest against it. As has been said, this is an unashamed power grab by the Executive at the expense of this House, and we believe that that is how it will be seen in the context of that wider picture.

However intensely hon. Members may dislike the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, simply voting for the Bill this evening will not automatically return us to our position prior to 2011 when that Act was introduced. The Scottish National party has said it will oppose the Bill all the way through, and we will oppose it again tonight. New clause 2, and the idea that a general election could be called to dissolve Parliament and that that motion must be agreed by this House, is correct. It appears to me that if the Bill passes without new clause 2, the Prime Minister of the day will have full and unfettered control over the Dissolution of Parliament and the timing of any general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Was that the hon. Gentleman’s speech? Shall I cross him off the list?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I do not believe it was my hon. Friend’s speech, Mr Evans, but if it was, it was a perfectly good one and I thank him for it. The points he makes are absolutely valid.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I guess that, like me, my hon. Friend finds it a bit perplexing, when sitting in this debate and looking at Conservative Members, who advocated for Brexit in their constituencies and for Parliament to take back control, that they will walk through the Lobby tonight to neuter Parliament. Do he and his constituents who voted against Brexit see the irony in what the Brexiteers will do tonight?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I am sure I am not the only person in this House who can see the irony of how taking back control supposedly has led us to a position where Parliament is being neutered by the Executive, and the people who were most loudly proclaiming “Take back control” are the people holding the scissors and doing the neutering—if that is not too much of an image, Mr Evans.

If the Bill passes, as well as there being no parliamentary or legal scrutiny, an active debate will still rage about whether the monarch’s prerogative powers would return to exactly as they were in 2011. I notice that, in her letter to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Minister acknowledged that

“there remains a role for the sovereign in exceptional circumstances to refuse a Dissolution request.”

But the monarch’s prerogative powers are now being enshrined in statute, having been removed by statute; they are now being restored by statute. So what exactly are the exceptional circumstances in which the monarch can refuse a Dissolution request? How can the Lascelles principles, which we heard earlier were prerogative powers, now be statutory powers? I cannot see how this returns us to the position we were in in 2011.

Therefore, we have been and will continue to be extremely uneasy about the insertion of the ouster clause making the Government’s action in relation to the dissolution of Parliament non-justiciable. As I said, we share the concerns of many Members across the Chamber that the repeal of the Fixed-terms Parliaments Act would not automatically take us back to the position of 2012 and we need a lot more clarity about exactly what legal position we would be in.

The Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee pointed out in a letter to the Minister:

“The Fixed-terms Parliaments Act was passed and the consequences of this cannot simply be wished away.”

I note that, in her response to the Committee Chair, the Minister accepts that there is an academic debate about the issue, but she seems to believe the opinion of her academics that the courts

“will be required to act as if the Fixed-term Parliaments Act had never been enacted”

and that they will be

“required to pretend that it never happened.”

It is a ridiculous situation and an extremely unsatisfactory position in which we find ourselves. For years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said, we have heard this Government talk about taking back control and the importance of parliamentary sovereignty. This is an early test of how this Parliament takes back that control, and the Executive are legislating to prevent it from happening. If the Bill is passed as it stands, Parliament and the judiciary, and arguably the monarch’s traditional role, will no longer be in play, and the decision to dissolve this place and call a general election will be entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister, who may call one when it is politically expedient so to do. That is not how a modern liberal democracy should function, and that is why we will not be supporting the Bill.

Back in January, both Lord Sumption and Baroness Hale were unequivocal in their evidence that the minimum safeguard required in the event of an ouster clause being put in place was the inclusion in the Bill of a time limit on the moving of writs for parliamentary elections. However, as it stands, there is no such provision in the Bill; six months on, the Government have not produced anything of the sort, and the original clause remains. In effect, that allows the Government to decide the length of a period of Prorogation, the gap between the Dissolution of Parliament and an election, and indeed the gap between an election and the first sitting of a Parliament. That is deeply worrying. The Government had an opportunity to take the advice of many learned people and improve the Bill. They refused to take that advice, and I fear that it is sinister and troubling that they did not.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

It is a great pleasure to follow so erudite and intelligible a speech from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara).

I have an experience that is very rare in my political career—a sense of complete vindication. I voted against the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in 2011, when it was brought in, and I seem to recall saying then what I hear the Minister saying from the Front Bench now: that it would not work and that it was an abominable intrusion and distortion of our constitution. I see this Bill as a welcome correction that brings our constitution back to the fundamental principle, which has existed for many years, that, with the important exception that the monarch has the right to speak his or her mind at the time the Prime Minister requests a Dissolution, and in the last resort even perhaps to decline it—although it would not be known for many years that he or she had—it should be the case that the Prime Minister can advise Her Majesty to dissolve the House. We are at last returning to sanity and, with the pardon of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to normality when it comes to the constitution.

However, I say to the Committee and the Minister that there is an issue that troubles me. It seems to me that, when we presented our manifesto to the country in 2019, we did not only promise that we would restore the balance of our constitution by repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. We presented the country then with a constitutional programme, or at least the willingness to look fundamentally at our constitution and to consider deeply whether we should restore to a more Conservative and a more traditional basis other aspects of our constitution, too.

In welcoming this Bill, therefore, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I hope that it is not the last measure that we will introduce in the portfolio that she occupies. At the moment, I look at our offering and I see this Bill, which I fully support, I see the Elections Bill, which I also support, and I see the Judicial Review and Courts Bill. I hope we are not going to be quite so timid as to present that as our sole offering to the country. In 1997, the Labour party was elected. One thing one can say about that Government is that they came in with a coherent, radical plan for the constitution, and they then enacted it with complete ruthlessness, and with complete disregard for Opposition voices. I was in the House some years later, and I recall vividly how the Labour party steamrollered its constitutional changes, including the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, through this House with very little by way of consideration and regard for alternative voices.

We now have a majority comparable to that, and I hope that we will not squander that opportunity. There are important things that we should now be doing. I have some sympathy with the plea this afternoon by the hon. Member for Rhondda that we should be considering Prorogation. So we should. We should be considering whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller No. 2 should stand. We should be considering whether other decisions of the Supreme Court should be allowed to stand. There comes to mind, for example, the Adams case, in which Mr Gerry Adams was effectively acquitted of his convictions in 1975 because the Supreme Court held that the Carltona principle in effect did not apply to the decision then taken. That, in my view, is a matter that this House ought to be reviewing.

I say to right hon. and hon. Members and to my friends on the Government Benches that we must not regard the constitution as an area that is too complicated for us to go into. We must not accept the liberal consensus, as it is no doubt called, upon which the new Labour Government in ’97 traded. We must not accept that these things are permanent features of our constitution. They were not introduced with our consent, and we have every right, with the mandate from the people that we now have, to reconsider them.

I say to the Minister that I applaud this Bill, and I applaud her particularly. I was impressed, if I may say so, throughout the course of her presentation by how deeply competent and how completely on top of her brief she was. Thank heavens for such a Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you and your colleagues, the Clerks and all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in what has been a good-natured debate.

Having said that, this is still a thoroughly bad piece of legislation, and nothing I have heard tonight has changed my mind.

Conservative Members seem determined, on a regular basis, to turn the clock back, in this case to a system deemed undesirable and out of touch more than a decade ago. As we have heard, politicians and academics are still arguing about whether it is even possible to believe that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 had never been enacted. We are being asked to pretend that it never happened. At the risk of showing my age, let me say that it is as though this Government have been taking advice from the scriptwriters of “Dallas”, who asked the world to pretend that Bobby Ewing had never died and they could just go back and pick up the storyline as though nothing had happened previously and anything that had happened in the past would have absolutely no consequence now. While that academic debate rages on and we are heading back to the situation prior to 2011, there can be no doubt that this Bill is little more than a brazen attempt by the Executive to entrench more and more powers with themselves, at the expense of this Parliament. I repeat: as bad as that is in and of itself, when it is viewed alongside what else is going through this place, we see that we are witnessing a full-on attack on our democracy. For that reason, we will be opposing the Bill on Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.

Elections Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Fundamentally, this Bill is an attack on democracy that will disenfranchise millions, entrench more powers with the Executive, and remove the power of the Electoral Commission to scrutinise. Like many others, I urge Members not to look at the Bill in isolation but to view it in the wider context of the other legislation going through the House at the moment with respect to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, citizens’ right to peacefully protest, and even the proposed privatisation of Channel 4. That paints a very bleak picture for our democracy.

When the Bill first appeared, in the Queen’s Speech earlier this year, the headline-grabbing proposal was voter ID, whereby photographic evidence would be required before an individual was allowed to cast their vote. However, as we have heard from many others this afternoon, voter fraud at polling stations barely reaches the height of minuscule, and the evidence that we have heard from those on the Government Benches has been based on personal anecdote. We have to ask: what is the problem they are seeking to solve?

Seeing a Government introduce such radical policy changes without a shred of evidence to support those changes sets alarm bells ringing among those of us who believe that every Government should be trying to remove barriers that prevent participation in the democratic process, rather than raising them.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about not taking the Bill in isolation and looking at the cumulative effect. Does he agree that it is definitive of a Government that have lost any confidence in their ability to outrun their outrageous false claims, their untruths and their broken promises that they have to bring this measure in to try to gerrymander the system?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I could not agree more, and I will elaborate on that as I go through my speech.

In all the debate and discussion that have followed the Queen’s Speech in May, the Government have had ample opportunity to produce the evidence that these proposals are a proportionate measure to deal with an identified problem, and they have not. The reason they have not is that there is absolutely no evidence for them to produce. As one leading, albeit unelected, Scottish politician recently said:

“They can’t cite any evidence of it because I don’t think there’s any evidence to cite. In terms of this particular part of the Queen’s Speech, I think it’s total bollocks, and I think it’s trying to give a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist, and that makes it politics as performance.”

It is not often that I agree with the former Scottish Conservative leader, Baroness Davidson, or whatever her title is at the moment, but on this occasion she was absolutely spot on.

In the absence of any evidence that voter ID is the answer to an identified problem, we can only conclude that, for the Conservative party, the problem is not folk turning up at polling stations without photographic ID, but that certain folk turn up at polling stations at all.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

May I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question I asked the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith)? Does he disregard the recommendations of the OSCE?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I do not regard any findings of the OSCE, but what I think is important in this place, looking at UK-wide elections, is that we have a measure that works for United Kingdom general elections, and this is one that absolutely does not. The right hon. Gentleman says we should be reinventing the wheel and starting from scratch. There is a debate to be had, but the imposition of this kind of voter ID now is absolute nonsense and there is no evidence whatever to justify it. This is, therefore, actually a ploy to stop people going to the polling station in the first place. I believe it really is as crude as that. The Government plan appears to have been to conjure up a demon, convince people that that demon is posing a threat to them, and then allow themselves to introduce draconian and totally disproportionate measures to slay the demon they have just invented.

The fatal flaw in that argument is that there never was a demon. No matter how the Government have tried to spin this, people know that there never was a demon and that there is nothing to see. Now, the United Kingdom Government stand accused of a sleazy attempt to gerrymander the register for their own electoral gain.

[Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)]

In his judgment on the election in Tower Hamlets, Richard Mawrey QC said there was an appreciable amount of personation by false registration in Tower Hamlets. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman has read that judgment.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I would say gently to the hon. Gentleman on the Tower Hamlets issue, which I believe went back to 2014, that to change an entire voting system on what went on in one particular London borough—the anecdotal evidence I have heard is that it was more to do with postal voting than personation. This measure is to do with personation, which has been proven not to be a problem.

This is an utterly reprehensible proposal that would be more at home in Donald Trump’s Republican party than in the United Kingdom. What is more important and more chilling is the brazen way in which the Government are doing it. They seem not to care. We always know it will not be the well-heeled and the affluent middle classes who will struggle to produce a passport, or a driving licence. We know and they know it will be the young, the poor, the marginalised and the minority communities who do not have a passport or do not drive, who will struggle to manage to collect a voter ID card. They will be affected by this registration.

The Government know that there are already between 2 million and 3 million people who do not have that ID. They also know that there are about 9 million people not registered. I think they should be spending an awful lot more time getting people on to the register than organising to take people off that register.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Would these be the same young people who have to show photo ID to get into a bar, a nightclub or a pub every Saturday night?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reduce this debate to that level, he is perfectly welcome so to do, but this is about a fundamental right for people to exercise their democratic right to vote. I urge him to take it a bit more seriously.

Yet again, this highlights the differences between what is happening here and what is happening in Scotland. If ever there was a reason why we need our independence, it is to get away from draconian legislation such as this. In May, when the Scottish National party won an unprecedented fourth term, we did it with a record number of people turning out to vote in a Scottish Parliament election. That does not happen by accident; that was by design. The SNP Government led the way by extending the franchise to all 16 and 17 year olds and, more recently, by allowing all eligible refugees in Scotland and those foreign nationals with settled status the right to vote. It is because we extended that franchise that we now have a thriving, healthy and robust democracy in Scotland. It is telling that, as Scotland, and indeed Wales, extend that franchise, this place seeks to do the exact opposite.

Over the summer, we learned that the Bill goes far beyond plans for voter ID. If it is passed, the Government will assume powers over the running and scrutiny of all future elections. The Bill reveals plans to strip the Electoral Commission of its powers and the independence it enjoys at the moment, and put it directly under the control of the Government, forcing it to conform to a strategy and policy statement which will be written by the Government. This means that the Government—the Executive—will be giving political direction to the organisation whose job it is to independently scrutinise and adjudicate on the fairness of elections. At a time when its powers should be extended, this Government are stripping the Electoral Commission of its powers and making scrutiny far more difficult.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. On extending the Electoral Commission’s powers, it has previously said that it does not have enough powers to keep the major parties in check and that overspending and breaches of electoral law have become business as usual, because it cannot fine them enough. Is this not all about taking further control rather than accepting open elections?

[Brendan O’Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are heading down a dangerous road and I urge Government Members to think carefully before proceeding.

One would have hoped that, at a time when democracies across the world are under threat from the influence of hostile actors, Governments could have taken this opportunity to introduce legislation to tackle those shadowy groups—those unincorporated associations—with anonymous sources of cash that are seeking to influence UK politics. However, given that openDemocracy recently revealed that since 2019, the Conservative party has accepted £2.5 million in donations from these shadowy groups, it was never going to be the anonymous, deep-pocketed bankrollers of the Conservative party who would be targeted in the Bill.

This Bill was always designed to hit the poor, the disadvantaged, the trade unions, the charity campaigners and civic society activists, because it will be the Secretary of State who will get to unilaterally decide who can campaign, what they can campaign on, when they can campaign, how much money they can raise and what they can spend those funds on. At a stroke, a Government Minister could ban a whole section of civic society, including trade unions and charities, from engaging in elections and campaigning or donating. It is fundamentally anti-democratic and people should be outraged by it. But, of course, if those people are unhappy and want to take to the streets to protest, this Government are already planning to block off that avenue to them.

[David Morris]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene. Charities are supposed to be apolitical—how do you explain that?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I say again that hon. Members really should not use the word “you”; otherwise, it becomes a bit of a conversation down there and we feel kind of left out.

[Brendan O’Hara]

A charity has the right to advocate on behalf of its members and the people it represents. A charity must have the leeway and the bandwidth to advocate. To block that off screams of the anti-democratic road that this Government are determined to go down.

What we have here is a Government who are allergic to criticism, who are terrified of scrutiny and who are determined to give themselves, through this and other pieces of legislation, the powers to silence their critics. They want to prevent public displays of dissent and weaken their political opposition while, at the same time, entrenching the advantage that they already have, all at the expense of democracy.

[Geraint Davies]

Aneurin Bevan famously said that in the struggle between poverty and property, when poverty rises, property will attack democracy. Is this not what we are seeing in terms of voter suppression, getting rid of the right to peaceful protest, and attacking the judiciary and our fundamental democratic rights?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman: we are heading down a very, very dangerous road. The public have to be made aware of that and Government Members have to be aware of where this could lead.

We would not take this in any other walk of life. If this was a casino, we would demand that it be shut down and the owners arrested for loading the dice, marking the cards and allowing the dealers to have aces hidden up their sleeves. If this was a football match, there is no way that we would accept the home team manager being the referee and the assistant manager sitting up in the VAR box. Why, then, are we being asked to accept this? Why are we being asked to let this Government play fast and loose with something as fragile and as precious as our democracy—something that so many have done so much to defend? Why are we being asked to let this Government undermine those independent institutions that are specifically there to scrutinise our elections and preserve the public’s trust in a free and fair electoral system?

This is little more than a grubby attempt to gain electoral advantage. Why are we being asked to potentially disenfranchise millions of poor people and disadvantaged communities? Why are we being asked to accept that a Government Minister can unilaterally decide who can or cannot campaign for what they passionately believe in? Why are we being asked to turn a blind eye to those incredibly rich and powerful bodies that seek to buy their way to influence and power in the UK Government?

Our democracy, as I said, is under sustained attack. The arithmetic of this place means that the only people who can prevent this anti-democratic slide are Conservative Members. If they decide to fall meekly in line with what the Government say and nod this truly, thoroughly anti-democratic legislation through, I fear that history will judge them as those who facilitated one of the darkest days for democracy in the history of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Walker]

I am certainly happy to offer that meeting. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution mentioned earlier that she has had a number of meetings with the RNIB already and has been working with it, but she will continue to meet it as the Bill progresses, because that is vital. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s illustration of the support for this measure in Northern Ireland.

[Brendan O'Hara]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I want to address some of the evidence that the hon. Gentleman’s party asked for. One survey conducted just a few years—

[Brendan O'Hara]

It is on that point.

[Mr Walker]

I will address the point that the hon. Gentleman’s party raised. One survey, conducted by the Electoral Commission in 2009 under the last Labour Government, just a few years after the introduction of photographic ID in Northern Ireland, found that 100% of respondents in Northern Ireland experienced no difficulty with presenting photographic ID at polling stations. As part of its post-election questionnaire in 2019, the Electoral Commission reported that 83% of voters in Northern Ireland found it very easy to participate in elections, as opposed to 78% across Great Britain, including, of course, Scotland.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Can I just clarify whether the Minister is drawing a clear and direct parallel between the situation in Northern Ireland in the 1990s and the situation in the United Kingdom in 2021? Is there a clear and direct parallel that joins the two that explains this legislation?

Afghanistan

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is important the House has the opportunity to reflect on this and consider what mechanisms we need to put in place to protect people in Afghanistan.

The harsh reality is that 3 million people have already been displaced, and 80% of those fleeing their homes are women and children. These people are now crying out for our help.

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

My right hon. Friend will be aware that yesterday the Nobel laureate Nadia Murad said:

“I know what happens when the world loses sight of women and girls in crises. When it looks away, war is waged on women’s bodies.”

Sadly, she is correct. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we do not act now and go so much further than the Government are proposing to protect women and girls, this political disaster will become a catastrophic moral failure?

[Ian Blackford]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

I just reflected on the fact that 3 million people have already been displaced. We need to show a generosity of spirit that recognises the scale of the challenge we face, so that women do not face the loss of their human rights, so that women do not face persecution and, yes, so that women do not face even worse, including death.

It is important to say that, if we are to support the Afghan people, this crisis needs to mark a point of fundamental change in this Government’s approach to refugees. In the past few months alone, this Government have introduced a hateful anti-refugee Bill that would rip up international conventions and criminalise those coming from Afghanistan in need of our refuge. The UK Government have spent a sizeable part of their summer making political play of turning away migrants and refugees in small boats who are desperately making their way across the channel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

Just to correct the record, my local authority, East Ayrshire Council, has resettled Syrian refugees.

[Brendan O’Hara]

As has mine.

[Alan Brown]

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) should correct the record.

International Aid: Treasury Update

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Programme motion
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

May I begin by saying how pleased I am that the Government have finally bowed to pressure and that we in this House are having the vote that we were promised on cutting money to the world’s poorest people? It is absolutely right that we have that vote because every Member of this House must declare his or her position. I fear that, without a meaningful vote, Members on the Government Benches could continue to hide behind crocodile tears or meaningless words of regret, without ever having to display the courage of their convictions and stand up and tell this Government that the decision to take £5 billion away from the world’s poorest people is fundamentally wrong and morally repugnant.

At the end of this debate, we will all have to declare where we stand, and no one can continue in the hope that, by choosing to stay silent, he or she will not be asked to come off the fence. Although this vote has been a long time coming, it does mean that we are all in this House well rehearsed in the arguments. Absolutely no one can pretend that he or she does not know what they are voting for this evening, or that they do not understand the consequences of their actions when they vote. They now know that, if they support the motion, that money is not coming back.

I find it utterly incomprehensible that the Government of one of the richest countries in the world appear hellbent on making the poorest people on this planet even poorer and more susceptible and vulnerable to disease, hunger and the lack of clean water. For them to push this as vigorously as they have, despite every single analysis telling them and us that millions of people will die, simply beggars belief. It is shameful that, if the motion is agreed tonight, it will mark a new low point for a country that pretends or boasts about being a beacon for tolerance, decency and humanity. This is the test of that vote.

As I have said before, this country has a moral obligation to help those in what we now call the developing world, not least because this country is in no small way responsible for the situation in which they now find themselves. The UK—Great Britain—grew rich and powerful on the backs of the world’s poor. We invaded, conquered, divided and plundered, leaving behind an impoverished wasteland. It is about time that this country woke up to its moral responsibility to assist those we abandoned to live with the consequences of British imperialism. We should not be running away from that responsibility. Those on the Government Benches have to accept that that is the consequence of their action tonight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now go back to Catherine West.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

May I, too, say how pleased we are to see the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) back in her place? I look forward to many confrontations with her in the coming weeks and months. Let me say at the outset that the SNP will be opposing the Second Reading of this Bill when the House divides this evening. We will do so not because we are particularly wedded to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, but because we believe that the Bill is a much wider part of a fundamental attack on our democracy.

One should not view the Bill in isolation. I believe that when Members look at it in the wider picture and place it alongside the voter suppression Bill, the Government’s plan to neuter the Electoral Commission and the draconian Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, they will reach the same conclusion that many of us have reached: this Bill is simpler another part of a brazen attempt by this Government to further centralise control, give more power to the Executive, strip parliamentarians of their powers and deny the judiciary the ability to scrutinise what they are doing, while at the same time eroding the public’s right to protest against them. This is an unashamed power grab by the Executive, and we believe that it will be seen as such when seen in the context of the wider picture.

[Mr Goodwill]

Surely we are just reinstating the status quo before 2010.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. No, we are not doing that, and I will come on to exactly why we are not. Although I acknowledge that the 2019 Labour manifesto said that they would repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and I understand that they intend to abstain in tonight’s Division and amend in Committee, I would caution that any support for this Bill has to be contingent on what is coming to replace it. I say to anyone who might not like the current Act and wishes to see it repealed to be careful what they wish for. To address the point made by the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), let me say that although in and of itself repealing that Act might look fairly innocuous and taken in isolation might even be seen as trivial and almost unimportant, I caution that if it is viewed as part of that wider, much larger strategy to centralise power and control with the Executive, this is a far cry from a benign piece of legislation, as they would have us believe.

[Michael Gove]

In this House and indeed in this Administration, there is a distinction between the role of Director of Public Prosecutions and Attorney General. I understand that in the Scottish Government the Lord Advocate combines both roles. That is a centralisation of Executive power, is it not? Would the hon. Gentleman advise his colleagues in the Scottish Government to move away from that centralisation of powers, towards the higher constitutional principles that we have here in the UK?

[Brendan O’Hara]

That is another piece of absolute obfuscation by the Minister—a ridiculous piece of obfuscation—so I will return to what I was saying. No matter how intense the 2011 Act, this is not a sufficient reason to support this Bill, because what this Government are proposing is a stripping away of one more pillar of parliamentary or judicial oversight. It is not simply a return to the position we had in 2011.

Mark Elliott, professor of public law at Cambridge University, has said:

“The statement of principles accompanying the Bill appears to presume that the Queen will dissolve Parliament as a matter of course when the Prime Minister so requests, thus implying an intention, on the part of the Government, not to restore the pre-FTPA position but to usher in a regime under which its latitude is greater than before”.

As we have heard, prior to 2011 the monarch was able, in certain circumstances, to deny a Prime Minister’s request to dissolve Parliament and seek an early general election. Because of the weaknesses of having an unwritten constitution, the prerogative power of the monarch, exercised, as we have heard, through the Lascelles principles, was one that was never able to be enshrined in statute. The Lascelles principles asserted that the monarch could deny Dissolution in certain circumstances, including in relation to the viability of the Government, being detrimental to the national economy and being able to find another Prime Minister who could govern. If this Bill becomes statute, what becomes of the Lascelles principles and the monarch’s ability to deny a request for a Dissolution of Parliament? As I understand it, this place may be able to create statutory powers by enacting statutes, but it cannot create prerogative powers, which, by definition, derive from a source other than statute. So those prerogative powers that the monarch has to seek a Dissolution are not coming back, meaning that this Bill is little more than an attempt by the Executive to circumvent even the minimal gatekeeping function exercised in the Lascelles principles by the monarch and all the power will be concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister. As Professor Elliott says

“the very legal uncertainty as to whether the prerogative can be revived means that it would be irresponsible simply to legislate to repeal the Act and try to revive the prerogative without being sure that you could.”

[Anthony Mangnall]

This is more of a clarification point. If the Lascelles principles are in place and the Government were to call a general election but an alternative grouping could come together to be able to create a Government, would that not allow the Queen to appoint a new Prime Minister, under the principles that were referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg)?

[Brendan O’Hara]

As I understand it, and reading what Professor Elliott says, the Lascelles principles would go and therefore we are not returning to exactly the position we had prior to the introduction of the 2011 Act. The Lascelles principles, because they are royal prerogatives, are not part of statute and therefore there is nothing to say that they will remain. They will go, so all the power will be on the Prime Minister and when a Prime Minister requests a Dissolution and a general election, the monarch will have no power on which to refuse.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so patient with me on this, but on reading the Bill, I do not see where it will be rescinding or taking away the Lascelles principles.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I think the fact that the principles are not there suggests that they will not be there. I understand that there is no statute—there cannot be—and therefore there will be no Lascelles principles on which to act. Hon. Members will know that things are pretty bad when I of all people stand here discussing the right of an unelected Head of State to use prerogative powers to act as a check on the excesses of the Executive.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because this is perhaps where we see the significance of clause 3. If there is to be nothing in this Bill or no decision that would be justiciable, then surely the implication is that, in fact, there is only one decision that can be made by the monarch, and that is to grant the application.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I absolutely agree. What is happening here is that the monarch will not be able to refuse under any circumstances, although not because of that very dangerous path of going into the political arena.

Although something of a constitutional anachronism, the Lascelles principles did at least provide a degree of constraint on a Prime Minister who opportunistically may have wanted to cut and run mid-term and hold a snap general election when their popularity was on the up, or perhaps more importantly and more pertinently, when they knew future events—perhaps the result of a particularly unhelpful public inquiry—would be guaranteed to put a major dent in their approval ratings.

[Michael Gove]

That would never happen to the SNP.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The right hon. Gentleman shouts from a sedentary position that that would never happen to the SNP. Indeed, the SNP could not cut and run in the Scottish Parliament because we work to a fixed term. The next Scottish Parliament elections will be on 7 May 2026, and no matter what befalls the Government between now and then, the Scottish Government will be held to account on that date.

[Mr Carmichael]

Presumably in that case, as with the OECD report on Scottish education, the SNP would just not publish the report until after the election.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The Scottish Government will stand by and have stood by their record, and have been accountable on the day of the Scottish elections for every Parliament. The Scottish Parliament knows when the next election will be, and every Government will be accountable on that day. If those in the Chamber want to look at the success of the Scottish Government—the SNP Scottish Government—as put forward and verified by the Scottish public just two months ago, let me say that I am sure there is not a Member of this House, particularly on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who would not give their eye teeth for such an endorsement. However, I will move on, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I can see that I am testing your patience somewhat.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

rose—

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I will take your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, and move on.

Clause 3 of the Bill is an ouster clause. It aims in effect to put the Government’s action beyond the reach of the law, meaning that decisions made by the Government on these matters are non-justiciable. This is clearly the action of a Government who are still smarting from the humiliation of the Supreme Court’s Prorogation judgment in 2019, which said that it was not in the power of the Prime Minister to suspend Parliament for such a long time at such a critical moment.

In January, Baroness Hale and Lord Sumption gave evidence to the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, and they both expressed serious reservations about clause 3 of this Bill, which renders non-justiciable the powers given to the Government in clause 2. Those non-justiciable powers include controlling the space of time between the Dissolution of one Parliament and the general election and between the general election and the first sitting of a new Parliament. All of that would be in the control of a Government whose previous attempts to undermine parliamentary democracy through proroguing in 2019 were, as we have seen, deemed unlawful. The difference this time is that they hope that the Supreme Court could not intervene. Back in January, both Lord Sumption and Baroness Hale were unequivocal in saying that the minimum safeguard that this Bill needed in the event of such an ouster clause was to put a time limit on the moving of writs for parliamentary elections, which has not been done.

[Michael Gove]

rose—

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will give way if it is on that point.

[Michael Gove]

It is very much on that point. That case was brought by the hon. Gentleman’s hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). Why was she sacked from the SNP Front Bench?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

In the name of the wee man. Madam Deputy Speaker, I attempt not to waste your time or this House’s time, so yet again I will ignore the Minister.

In evidence to the Committee, the Government were advised that:

“The Fixed-term Parliaments Act had a provision that limited the time within which writs for parliamentary elections could be moved, and it is the latter that I think you would be wise to introduce into this Bill.”

Lord Sumption also warned the Government at that meeting. He said:

“I suspect that if the Prime Minister was effectively attempting to rule without Parliament by simply failing to issue writs of summons, the courts might well intervene for precisely the same reasons that they intervened in the case of the prorogation…I think it quite likely that the reasoning in Miller No. 2 would be applied to that situation. But, because this is a very undesirable state of affairs, I would very strongly urge you to introduce into the Bill a provision with a time limit.”

Baroness Hale and Lord Sumption could not have been clearer, but, six months later, the Government still have not introduced anything of the sort and clause 3 remains as it was back in January, in effect allowing the Government to decide on the length of a Prorogation, the gap between a Dissolution and an election and, indeed, the gap between an election and the first sitting of a new Parliament. They were warned by learned judges that that is not an acceptable state of affairs and they have had six months to do something about it, but it still does not appear in the Bill. If the Bill is passed as the Government wish, they will be able to do all of that in the hope of not having the courts look at it.

Until now, the only vague explanation I have heard about why the Government have not taken on the former Supreme Court judges’ advice is on a basis of, “Trust us—do you really think we would do such a thing?” The obvious answer is yes, because they have form for doing exactly that and have been found to have acted illegally. When the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution responds to the debate, will she explain why the Government have not taken on their advice? Indeed, will the Government finally seek to amend the Bill?

Under normal circumstances, a debate on whether this Parliament chooses to fix a term between its general elections is not something that the SNP would get overly het up about. Indeed, we do not intend to be here much longer. Hopefully, Scotland’s participation in UK general elections will be a thing consigned to the history books and children will learn about it alongside Robert Burns, William Shakespeare, the moon landings and how England came so close to winning the European championships. I hope, and have little doubt that, when established, our independent Scottish Parliament will continue to use the current arrangement: the one whereby everyone knows that, barring the collapse of the Government and an inability to create a new one, Scottish Parliament elections will take place on the first Thursday of May in 2026. That is how it should be.

The Bill once again exposes the absurdity of the UK not having a written constitution and reveals the inherent weakness of a system which simply hopes that the Executive branch do not do the things that, as a matter of legal and constitutional theory, they are allowed to do. Unfortunately, when the Executive decide to flex their muscles at the expense of the legislature and the judiciary, the failure to have adequate entrenched legal constitutional constraints becomes all too apparent. As I have said several times, the Bill cannot be seen in isolation and must be viewed as part of a concerted and co-ordinated power grab on the part of the Executive; one which, if they are successful, will give them even greater powers over Parliament and the courts. That is why the SNP will vigorously oppose it.