Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Christine Jardine Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith]

It is a pleasure to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place and I, too, look forward to sparring with him again on constitutional matters. I do not disagree with that. I am certainly not stood here to mount a defence of the FTPA. I was outlining some ways in which I felt the Act did work, but I am also highlighting huge flaws in the Act. Indeed, there is a reason why, in the Labour manifesto of December 2019, we said we would repeal it. The point he raises about the Prime Minister being able to control the date of the election is a huge reason why the Act is flawed. However, I am arguing that the principle of having fixed terms in itself is not necessarily a bad principle; it is a very pro-democracy principle.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Something occurs to me. Those on the Government Benches might say there was stasis for two years, but perhaps the public expected politicians to debate and find a way ahead for the country, rather than just fix into positions and refuse to compromise. The way is not always to jump. It should not always be the Government alone who decide what is best for the country. That is Parliament’s role, surely.

[Cat Smith]

It would not be at all like the Liberal Democrats to dig into a position and hold it. [Laughter.] I do not believe that that Parliament hit the troubles it hit necessarily just because of the FTPA. If the Act had not been in place, there would still have been huge problems, because the governing party could not command confidence within its own Members and have a majority for its flagship policy. That was the sticking point for that Parliament.

The Act has been used as quite an easy scapegoat. It is blamed for all the ills of that Parliament. While it is not a perfect piece of legislation, and I support its repeal, I can see that the principle of fixed terms is not, in itself, necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, I believe the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said 10 years ago, during the passage of the Act, that it was the biggest move of powers from the Executive in several centuries. That raises the question, if we are to repeal that Act and go back to the status quo and the old way of doing things, whether today is the biggest transfer of powers from the legislature to the Executive. Indeed, the 2015 Conservative manifesto celebrated the Fixed-term Parliaments Act’s success:

“We have also passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act, an unprecedented transfer of Executive power.”

That raises the question of whether we are transferring power back to the Executive and, if so, whether that is something this House really wishes to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that I will take much less than 10 minutes. In this debate we have gone over the constitutional law aspects of the Bill, and we have talked much about the Parliament of 2017 to 2019 and the implications of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I wish to look at one aspect that I do not think has been discussed sufficiently, which is that as a new Member of Parliament in 2017, I came into a situation where there was constant speculation about the possibility of an early election.

Almost every week between 2017 and December 2019, we discussed the possibility of a general election and when it would be—this year, next year or next month. That causes instability, and not only within Parliament for its Members, who are trying to figure out what they should be doing; but how does one govern in a situation where the Government could end at any moment and one could be going into a general election?

We have talked a lot about the public and their perception of Parliament today, and between 2017 and 2019 they were dissatisfied with the uncertainty about where their Government were going and what was going to happen. Business was unhappy with it, and it disrupted much of the personal, commercial and industrial life of the country.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Member intently. Was the problem between 2017 and 2019 not precisely the opposite, in that there was no way to have an election so that the Government could get on with governing and we could get business transacted in this place? Was it not the exact opposite of what she is describing that posed so many of the issues that we faced in those years?

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, but I would say that it was actually the opposite. If we all cast our minds back to 2017 when the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was in place, we will remember that we had a snap general election because the Government wanted a general election. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act allowed for that. Then, between 2017 and 2019, the Government chose to behave like a majority Government when they were not one. The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said earlier that we had an instruction from the public; we did not. We had a divided country and a divided Parliament as a result. We did not have a majority and we had uncertainty and a Government who did not accept that to get anything done, they had to find a way to work with the other parties. That was the problem between 2017 and 2019.

Ironically, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, in 2019 we were able to come to a general election, even though it was in December, because the Government realised that they had to find a way and talk to people. In that respect, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act did not fail; it proved its worth in allowing the Government to be flexible enough to do that. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) said, the devolution Act allows for the same possibility in Scotland: if it is not possible for the Government to govern, there will be an election. I accept that the Fixed- term Parliaments Act is not perfect, but I do think it allows for some stability. It allows a Government, an Opposition and the public to know that there will be a period of stability if there is a majority Government.

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Member is being kind and indulgent of me in giving way. The simple fact is that the reason why we were able to have a snap election in 2017 was that two thirds of the House of Commons voted for it. That was never going to be the case at any point between 2017 and 2019; in fact, we had the farcical scenes of the Prime Minister wanting to dissolve his own Government to go to the country and the Leader of the Opposition agreeing, but not just yet. The hon. Member suggests that the uncertainty was brought about because the threat of an election was hanging over us, when actually the exact opposite was the case.

[Christine Jardine]

I am afraid I beg to differ. For me and for many people I know, the instability was because the Government did not accept the reality of the situation we were in and act accordingly. We could spend the rest of the evening debating what the Government did between 2017 and 2019 but we would not change it.

The fact of the matter remains that we had a general election in 2019 and we are now discussing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which I believe offers this country the opportunity for the same sort of stability as we see in democracies around the world and within our own democracy. If the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is repealed, this place will be perhaps the only sphere of government—local, national or devolved—in the United Kingdom that does not have a fixed term. It is not just about those elected to this place; those who work for it and for the elected representatives do not have the certainty and security of knowing what the term of a Parliament will be. That is why, as I said, I believe that although the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was not perfect, it was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, a necessary modernisation and a recognition that the way we had done things up to 2011 had to be changed. We had to come into the 21st century, with a fixed-term Parliament with the flexibility to have an election but the stability that the country not only needed at that time but needs right now because of covid-19.

What happened in 2010 was not something that will never happen again. The situation that the country faced—the crisis that needed stability—was not something that happens only once in history. It has happened before and it will happen again and, as I have said, it is happening now. What the people of this country need from us is the certainty and the stability of what their future will be. That is why they elected us. We should not need the threat of a general election to be out there talking to and engaging with our constituents and listening to what they say. If we do, then we have failed.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) described this Bill as a power grab and, in that, I have to agree with him. It is taking power away from Parliament. It is taking power away from the Members of Parliament and, in doing so, from the elected representatives, and placing it in the hands of the Government and only the Government. It is making the timing of a general election the whim, potentially, of one person based on the scenario of the time. We have talked about lots of decisions about when general elections were and when they were not. In 1974, when, sadly, I was also alive—

[Anthony Mangnall]

I am sorry that I was not there to see the 1974 election. We talk a lot in this place about the precedent and the history of what has gone on before us, but actually there are not many examples, with the exception of 1974, of where early elections have been called, so this is not a precedent that has been abused. It has been done with careful consideration by the Government of the day to call an election, not always to their advantage.

[Christine Jardine]

I am conscious that I am running out of time. I accept that it has not always been abused. If we look at that thread, we will see something common in 1974 and 2017. If a party goes for a snap election, the country will not necessarily re-elect it, because the country did not necessarily want a snap election; it wanted stability. Therefore, I return to my original point that what we have with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is the certainty and the stability that, perhaps not the Government, but the country demands. Therefore, I will be voting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland.

If I could take one more second, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be to echo the thoughts of my right hon. Friend, now that the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution is back in her place, and say what a delight it is to have her here.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I can absolutely confirm that that is our ambition. I look forward to publishing the updated veterans action plan later this year. May I put on record my thanks for my hon. Friend’s magnificent work in Bishop Auckland to celebrate the important role of veterans in her community?

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

Yesterday I had the opportunity to talk to the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in order to advance plans for a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the vital importance of covid recovery. I was grateful for the constructive work across the United Kingdom.

Mentioning that conversation gives me the opportunity, which I am sure the whole House will want to share, to thank Arlene Foster for her leadership as First Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive. Arlene will be stepping down shortly. She is a lovely, wonderful person who has done an amazing job. She is a brilliant advocate for the people of Northern Ireland. I know that we will all wish her very well for the future.

[Christine Jardine [V]]

We have all heard already this morning about the importance of levelling up in our covid recovery, but in constituencies such as mine, Edinburgh West, it is also important to reinforce and remind people of the strength and support available from the UK Government. Does the Minister for the Cabinet Office agree that it is vital that we remain focused on that and on recovery, and that we do not get side-tracked by the SNP’s damaging obsession with independence?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady puts the case in absolutely the right way: we need to focus on recovery. It was good to hear the First Minister stress in our conversation yesterday that she appreciated that that was a priority. I know that people in Edinburgh completely find the hon. Lady’s arguments compelling, which is why her colleague and friend Alex Cole-Hamilton secured more than 50% of the first preference votes for Edinburgh West in the Scottish Parliament; obviously it was for a different party from my own, but it is a reflection of the fact that he and she are really good local representatives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

We looked into the impact of voter ID on disabled voters, and our research, which draws on the most comprehensive information available, indicates that 97% of disabled electors report having at least one form of photographic identification, so we do not believe that it will affect them. As I mentioned in response to the previous question, we will have legislation that will make it clear that local authorities must provide a voter card free of charge so that people will still be able to vote. We must remember why we are doing this: no one should lose their right to vote because someone else has assumed their identity. Personation is very difficult to prove and prosecute, but it is not a victimless crime and it is absolutely right that we resolve the matter.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Whether the Government are taking steps to tackle gender-targeted pricing.

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

Prices in the UK are set by competition, not the Government, but it is unlawful to offer goods or services to women and men at a range of different prices. The Equality Act 2010 provides that a retailer must not discriminate against the customer either by failing to provide goods or services, or by providing them on different terms, on the basis of someone’s sex.

[Christine Jardine]

It is more than two years since I first raised this issue in this place and very little has changed: women still pay, on average, 20% more for basic goods and services. We have heard already today that women have been hardest hit in this pandemic and we know there is a gender pay gap. If someone comes, like me, from a single-parent family with three daughters, that family faces a much bigger challenge in the current circumstances. The Minister has said that it is unlawful; will the Government please take steps to ensure that the 2010 Act is enforced when it comes to gender-targeted pricing?

[Kemi Badenoch]

It is probably worth my letting the hon. Lady know that I understand what she says but disagree with the premise and the argument she makes. It is important to recognise that in a legal sense there is no discrimination involved in gender pricing, as there is nothing to stop a woman buying a product marketed towards men, or vice versa. The Government want a society in which women and men are free to make the choices that suit them, regardless of rigid stereotypes. I am afraid I think that the Bill the hon. Lady wanted to enact would actually have had the unintended consequence of reinforcing stereotypes.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

It is a sad privilege to be here today to pay tribute on behalf of my constituents in Edinburgh West, the city whose name His Royal Highness Prince Philip—Duke of Edinburgh—carried with such great aplomb across the globe.

We have heard so many touching tributes today and over the weekend to someone whose contribution to life in this country is unmeasurable and will perhaps be unmatched. It is difficult to know where to begin—which aspect of this extraordinary life to turn to first—but there is one part that surely all of us in public life must take as an example. Surely what drives us all is the desire to make a difference and improve lives. In establishing the Duke of Edinburgh Award, His Royal Highness took the opportunity to do just that. Millions of young people—several generations across the globe—have had their lives enriched by the experience it offers.

In my household, I was often envious of my late husband and my daughter, both of whom had taken part in the scheme. As my daughter embarked on a journey, I listened as they shared anecdotes. When my daughter laughed with her friends, remembering their expedition, I could see how much they had all gained, and how their lives had been enriched and their attitudes shaped.

That is true not just of the award scheme, but in Prince Philip’s early championing of conservation and nature. His work in that area was part of laying the foundation of so much of what we strive to do today—what will be discussed in and the aim of COP26. When future generations review the past century in this country’s history, I hope they will recognise how remarkable it has been to have an individual who left such an indelible imprint on national life, was influential on the international stage in shaping our respect for the environment, and was such a positive influence on so many individual young lives. In my previous career as a journalist, I saw at first hand on many occasions the ease with which Prince Philip communicated, connected with people and left them smiling.

Like everyone here today, my deepest sympathy and condolences and those of my constituents are with Her Majesty the Queen and the entire royal family in their loss. I hope that they have found comfort in hearing in what high and widespread regard Prince Philip was held and the admiration for what he achieved in an extraordinary life supremely well lived.

Integrated Review

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is totally right. This is one of the areas that I know that every embassy and consulate in the Foreign Office campaigns on. I believe that we make a huge difference around the world. There are countries that have changed their policies on marriage and their approach to LGBT issues in response to British lobbying. The latest Magnitsky sanctions that we have implemented are in respect of Chechnya for its policy on LGBT issues. We will continue to campaign and evangelise for our values and our beliefs around the world.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am a member of the board of governors of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. In that capacity, I am aware of the importance of the work that it and other organisations do in protecting open, democratic societies across the globe. Not being a Scottish nationalist, I am also aware how important that is to the UK’s own national interest. Can the Prime Minister assure us that that work will continue despite the difficulties we face following the current financial year?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I can. I have seen the excellent work that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy does around the world. I have personally attended debates that it has championed in countries where democracy is precarious, and I thank the hon. Lady very much for what she is doing.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher). I think we all appreciate that the Chancellor’s statement today comes at a time when the covid-19 virus has had far-reaching and, in some cases, life-changing and even life-ending consequences for far too many of our constituents. People have seen the well-planned, well-financed future they had built for their families swept away by the virus. Businesses are now on the brink because they followed responsibly the rules laid down by the Government. While there are some steps in the Budget that I am sure will be welcomed, it does not go far enough for the many who have suffered the most, such as those on lower incomes, for whom the freeze on the tax threshold will mean a real- terms loss in their income.

Today, a million small businesses and small-business owners who have been fighting desperately to stay afloat and protect jobs and livelihoods were looking to the Chancellor to extend a lifeline—something to get them through the next few months and out on the other side of this pandemic. While there will be changes to corporation tax in two years’ time, that is two years’ time. What about tomorrow, next week and next month? I am sorry, but what we have heard today falls far short of what those small businesses needed. We need to get shops, tradesmen, hairdressers and florists, who are the backbone of our economy and the heart of our communities, through the next few months and they needed changes now. They have lost income and revenue to pay the rent costs, which are building up, and they are accruing debt.

Five billion pounds for small businesses is not enough. What the Chancellor has announced does not even touch the sides of the problem. What we need, and what Liberal Democrats have been calling for, is a £50 billion recovery fund to help small businesses meet their costs and replace their lost revenue until they are able to trade properly again, until the economy is open—£25 billion over three months, totalling £50 billion. We have seen in Germany that it can succeed.

We have also called on the Chancellor to implement a zero business rates policy for all small businesses in 2021-22. While maintaining the VAT cut for hospitality is essential, we would have liked to see that stay in place until the end of the financial year, not just until September, and not just for hospitality but for all businesses. VAT deferral would allow them to free up capital to invest in their business.

The extensions to furlough, to self-employment support and to the universal credit uplift all needed to go much further. Furlough should be extended for as long as we need it, and all the self-employed and excluded should be brought into it. Too many people who have been left out will remain so after this Budget. There are 3 million people who have had no financial support at all in this crisis, and only 600,000 of them, according to the Chancellor’s own figures, will be helped. The gaps in support all-party parliamentary group gave the Chancellor a plan that would have helped those left out. Why did he not take it?

As for the universal credit uplift, even with it, the UK still has one of the least generous social welfare systems in the OECD, and one that we all know is seriously flawed. The uplift is due to end when unemployment could rise again, as the furlough scheme, which has kept it down, comes to an end. Therefore, when will the Government listen to the voices across the country, and from all political parties, that are calling for pilots and trial schemes of a universal basic income, which would have meant that nobody fell through the cracks during this crisis?

Now we all look to September and wait for the Chancellor’s next batch of patches. I am left today with far too few answers and too many questions. Why is our economic performance so much worse than those of other countries? Why is support for small businesses and the self-employed so little, especially for those so hard hit by Brexit? There is no long-term reform of business rates. Why is there nothing on social care and carers? Why so unambitious on our future green industries? There are no tax incentives for transitioning away from a carbon economy, and there is nothing to replace the green homes grant. But there is a tax hike on the lowest paid, by freezing the threshold next year. Simply mitigating the problems caused by covid will not repair the economy or provide the investment for the growth that we need for recovery.

Small businesses, families and self-employed people up and down this country were watching today, hoping for something to repay their commitment and their sacrifice in fighting this pandemic—a fair response from the Government, not self-congratulations on having done so well. The Chancellor, at the beginning of his statement, promised us a Budget to meet the moment. I am afraid that I do not think he has fulfilled that pledge.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important issue and for the work she has done on improving the situation. We have been working intensively with the RNIB. Any systems and reforms that are brought in do need to be tested, and it is unfortunate that the cancellation of the elections this year has meant that we have not had that opportunity. But we will do next year. We are determined that, whether someone wants to vote in person or via post, they have a method of doing so that meets their needs and is secure.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

If he will negotiate a phased period of implementation for new trading rules after the end of the transition period.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

The Government have been clear that the transition period will end on 31 December. We have made extensive preparations for a wide range of outcomes, including through a package of support for border infrastructure and the customs intermediary sector, and, of course, the phased implementation of border controls. A trader support service is also in place to help businesses trading under the Northern Ireland protocol, and we are scaling up the provision of Government helplines.

[Christine Jardine [V]]

A great deal of concern has been expressed to me by local businesses in Edinburgh West, and there are national concerns among industries such as the whisky sector, about the difficulties businesses are having with things like not knowing how they should label products given that there is, as yet, no clarity about our future relationship with the European Union. Anything that the Government can do to extend the period of adjustment would be appreciated by businesses and would help to offset the Scottish National party drive towards breaking up the United Kingdom, about which I know the Government share my concern.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; we need to do everything we can to support businesses in Scotland and elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is doing everything she can to help the whisky sector, not least through discussions with the US trade representative, Robert Lighthizer. More broadly, we want to make sure, in the free trade agreement that we seek, that there can be a smooth glide path for businesses in Scotland and elsewhere. I look forward to continuing to work with the hon. Lady. She has been a consistent voice for Scotland’s businesses, both in the House and before she came to the Commons, and her advocacy, free of any partisan agenda, is something of which her constituents should be proud.

EU Withdrawal Agreement

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is a brilliant advocate for the life science sector, and I know that it provides jobs and investment in Cambridgeshire and beyond. It is also the case that there is a thriving life science and pharmaceuticals sector in Northern Ireland, and it will be the case that there are no impediments to the continued successful integration of that work.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for many years, and while we might have differed on Brexit, there is another issue—and it is Scotland—on which we are very much in agreement. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us today that every effort will be made to ensure that this agreement, good as it is for Northern Ireland, is not used to undermine Scotland’s position within the Union, and does he consider that my constituents in Edinburgh West and elsewhere might benefit from the same sort of phasing-in agreement as has been agreed for Northern Ireland?

[Michael Gove]

I have known the hon. Lady, as she says, for a few years—she is a brilliant MP and she is absolutely right. The shadow Minister said that people should not play politics with the Good Friday agreement, and I do not think they should. I think it is important to recognise that Northern Ireland is in a unique position within the UK, and I think the majority of people in Scotland and across the UK recognise that, but it is also important—the hon. Lady is absolutely right—that in our arrangements with the EU, we take specific account of the needs that Scotland has. On everything from the provision of seasonal agricultural workers to making sure that we can expedite fish and shellfish from the north-east to the EU, and indeed the principled position that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is taking on whisky exports, it is absolutely important that we recognise that Scotland has distinct needs and that working with the Scottish Government and Scottish MPs, like herself, we can advance Scotland’s interests.

Covid-19: Winter Plan

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]]

Regardless of today’s announcement, many businesses and people in my constituency of Edinburgh West and across this country are still completely excluded, and have been for many months, from Government support. Can the Prime Minister assure us that his Government will address the issue of those millions of people who have been excluded?

[The Prime Minister]

We hope that nobody has been excluded. There is a massive package of support—and Barnett consequentials for Scotland running to many billions—with £13.5 billion for the self-employed alone.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

If he will hold discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on extending the support available under the coronavirus job retention scheme to June 2021 to help support Welsh businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)]

I am quite surprised by the hon. Lady’s question, as the Government have extended the coronavirus job retention scheme to the end of March. It continues to protect millions of employees across the United Kingdom and has supported over 400,000 jobs in Wales, and in fact 700,000 in Scotland, too.

[Christine Jardine]

I did welcome and continue to welcome the fact that the job retention scheme has been extended until March, but in fact we would ask that it is extended until June 2021, as that would give businesses sufficient time to plan and to be able to build, considering that we will also come to the end of the transition period. Does the Secretary of State also recognise the need to extend furlough and support to those small companies that so far have had nothing and the self-employed who have been excluded from all support?

[Simon Hart]

We have to be serious about this, and it seems to me odd that each time we extend the scheme, we are asked to extend it even further. I think that if we extended it to 2050, the hon. Lady would be saying that 2051 would be a more appropriate date. The fact is that the Chancellor has attempted to be as flexible, versatile and dynamic as possible, and hundreds of thousands of people’s jobs have been saved as a result of that flexibility.