Palestinians: Visa Scheme

Debate between David Linden and Cat Smith

Monday 13th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Cat Smith]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), and then the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).

[Cat Smith]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been looking ahead because I will come on to this, but I agree that we cannot take a crisis-by-crisis approach. There is a huge problem for many people fleeing conflict all over the world, and the lack of safe routes is something that came up in conversations I had in meetings before the debate with organisations such as the Refugee Council. I am conscious that I have taken a lot of interventions from my party, and I saw two colleagues from other parties who wanted to intervene. I will give way to my colleagues from the SNP and from the Green party.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Petitions Committee for opening the debate and framing it the way she has. She is right to touch on the situation not just in Rafah, but in Gaza. Given that the Foreign Secretary is on the record well in the past of referring to Gaza as an “open-air prison”, and with things only projected to get worse in Rafah, is it not the case that many of us can only conclude that, from the view of the UK Government, a Palestinian life is worth less than one of someone of another nationality?

[Cat Smith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s assessment of the situation. Indeed, I suspect that quite a lot of what the Foreign Secretary has said in the past would serve well to influence current Government policy.

Petitions

Debate between David Linden and Cat Smith

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to present a petition signed by 45 of my constituents who live in and around the beautiful village of Preesall. It was signed by every member of the public who attended my very impromptu public meeting on the matter of the Preesall quarry on 1 July. I put on the record my thanks to my constituent Leanne for organising the posters across the village so well.

Residents are concerned about the proposal to build a new quarry, due to concerns about the roads and the environmental impact, as well as about noise, dust pollution and contaminated water. Quarries disrupt the water table, which is a worry in a village that has localised flooding.

The petition states:

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ask Lancashire County Council to engage with local residents and ultimately reject the plans for a quarry in Preesall.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that residents of Preesall and Knott End on Sea are concerned about a proposal to build a new quarry in Preesall to remove 460,000 tonnes of sand and gravel; notes if the company wants to remove 460,000 tonnes of material, it is equivalent to 43,000 return trips on Preesall’s narrow rural roads; declares that, given the dangerously poor state of the public access routes to the quarry land at Bourbles Farm, rural roads can not withstand the daily impact of so many 32 tonne HGV journeys; further that many hundreds of families would be adversely affected by the environmental impact of mining a quarry so close to residential homes; further that creating quarries requires the removal of virtually all natural vegetation, top soil and subsoil to reach the aggregate underneath leading to a loss of existing animal wildlife and biodiversity as plants and aquatic habitats are destroyed; further that adjacent eco-systems are affected by noise, dust, pollution and contaminated water; and further that quarries also disrupt the existing movement of surface water and groundwater which is a worry in a village with a history of localised flooding.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ask Lancashire County Council to engage with local residents and ultimately reject the plans for a quarry in Preesall.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002744]

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Over the past few weeks, I have spoken to a number of local citizens advice bureaux that, as would always be the case, are concerned about the impact of social security cuts at Westminster on many of their clients. One issue they have raised with me is the increasing casework they are experiencing. In particular, it is taking their staff and volunteers hours and hours to get through to the Department for Work and Pensions.

I pay tribute to Liz Willis and Joan McClure from the Parkhead and Easterhouse citizens advice bureaux who have petitioned me.

The petition states:

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to set up a Department of Work and Pensions dedicated telephone line for advice services.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,

Declares that punitive social security cuts as well as the rising use of conditionality means that more and more people are turning to advice services, such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, to advocate on their behalf with the Department of Work and Pensions; and further that many advice service staff and volunteers are spending far too much time waiting to speak with DWP staff on general telephone lines.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to set up a Department of Work and Pensions dedicated telephone line for advice services.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P002745]

Covid-19: Impact on Social Work

Debate between David Linden and Cat Smith

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. Will she allow me to place on record my thanks to those on the frontline of social work in Glasgow? In particular, I pay tribute to the social work team in Easterhouse in the East community addiction team in Parkhead. Before covid-19, many of those social workers had an enormous workload, which has only been exacerbated by several lockdowns. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that we listen to the voice of social workers on further support from Government as we emerge from covid-19, as their workload has undoubtedly changed?

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for making that point. As a frequent visitor to his constituency, I know that his social work team in Glasgow do an amazing job supporting his constituents, and he is right to say that the voice of social workers needs to be heard by Government.

I have spent a lot of time with social workers over the years, some of whom have gone on to be elected Members of the House and who were then able to provide a platform for social work issues, and I have huge respect for the Members of the House who come from a social work background. One of the first MPs I met, Hilton Dawson, was a social worker before being elected MP for Lancaster in 1997. After Parliament, he went to work at the British Association of Social Workers, where I worked with him before being elected to the House. There is probably quite a nice symmetry in that, but I suspect that he is probably watching and wondering why it has taken me so long to get a Westminster Hall debate on this important issue. Indeed, given that his most recent political activity was standing in the Hartlepool by-election for the North East party, he has certainly been on a political journey, too.

The British Association of Social Workers is the professional organisation for more than 22,000 social workers in the UK. Its annual survey was carried out at the end of 2021, and the results were published just a few weeks ago. Social workers are on the frontline. They know their own profession and what they need in order to be able to fulfil their statutory and non-statutory obligations to a high standard. The Government should be listening to them.

In the survey, the three biggest challenges facing the workforce were determined to be the demands of administrative tasks, workload demand and adequacy of staffing. Nearly 5,000 family social workers left the profession during 2021—up 16% compared with 2020. How can we trust that we are doing the best by social workers if they are leaving the profession in such numbers and trying to do their job without departments being fully staffed?

High workloads and staff shortages will lead to current staff burning out. In many professions, burnout at work means that someone drops the ball on a deadline and perhaps one or two deadlines are missed, but a burnt-out social worker can be a matter of life and death for a child. It is not the fault of that social worker; the issue is the environment in which they work. Social workers do their very best to support people, so Government must do their very best to support social workers.

The pandemic did not only affect child safeguarding. The challenges facing care homes were also a key focus, but Government failed to bring forward many solutions. They only issued guidance and let care homes make their own decisions about visitors and testing, and that caused a lot of upset. Social workers reported that they were unable to access care homes. Social workers have a key safeguarding role, and residents’ family members and social workers facing access restrictions only heightened the worry about what was going on inside care homes.

How were people coping with the changes? Many care home residents, especially those with illnesses such as dementia, would not have understood why their family members were not visiting. That was never the right approach. I appreciate that the confusion in a pandemic can lead to some rash and ill-thought-out decisions, but it must never be allowed to happen again. Upholding human rights is not an optional add-on; it is a fundamental part of our social care system and should never have been restricted.

The pandemic also had an impact on people with learning disabilities and autistic people. “Do not resuscitate” orders were being issued basis solely on a person’s learning disability. That is a national scandal. Does the Minister understand the distress that those orders will have caused people? People with learning disabilities have, for a variety of reasons, much poorer health outcomes than the population as a whole. Along with other vulnerable and marginalised groups, people with a learning disability and autistic people bore a disproportionate weight of the impact of covid-19, including a greater risk of death.

This cannot be looked at simply in the context of the pandemic, either. We know from scandals such as that involving Winterbourne View care home that people with learning disabilities and autistic people are not always treated in the way they should be. The British Association of Social Workers’ “Homes not Hospitals” group campaigns on this, so will the Minister agree to a meeting with that group to talk about what the Government can do to get people with learning disabilities and autistic people out of hospital and back into the communities where they belong?

Social workers join the profession because they care deeply about society and the people within it, but social workers can do their job properly only if the Government are giving them the resources to do so. There needs to be proper funding for local authorities so that councils can invest in preventive measures. The cuts to local authority budgets affect social work, but also sectors such as youth work. I have secured many debates in the House on youth work and I know that there is sometimes, in some places, a bit of a tension between the youth work profession and the social work profession but, particularly for children in care, a strong working relationship between youth workers and social workers can really make the difference for a young person’s life outcomes.

We do not know whether there will be another dangerous strain of covid-19 or a new virus altogether that may force us into more restrictions on the way we live our lives, but we have to learn the lessons from this pandemic. Social work and social workers must be at the heart of recovery. It is a profession that is often hidden until someone needs the support of a social worker, but it is work that we could not be without.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Cat Smith

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I rise to speak to amendment 63, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues. I am grateful to you, Dame Eleanor, for selecting it as a manuscript amendment, particularly at such short notice. I am not normally a fan of ramming a Bill through in such short order, but I understand the need for speed in this case.

As others said on Second Reading, the Bill is to be broadly welcomed, but it does not go far and fast enough. A much bigger and more wide-ranging debate stems from the Elections Bill, which is currently in the other place, and the eligibility of overseas voters and donors to influence our politics, but I do not think we want to go too far down that rabbit warren this evening. However, clause 38 makes provision for financial penalties to be applied in respect of overseas entities, and I support that.

My amendment seeks to close off a loophole: we could apply significant financial penalties to an individual, yet said individual, even if they lived overseas, would still be able to vote and, more concerningly, donate significant sums to UK political parties and influence our elections. I am the first to accept that our focus right now should be on applying the maximum economic sanctions on Russia to alleviate and end the military bombardment that it is subjecting the poor people of Ukraine to. It strikes me as a little bizarre that we can have a debate—and indeed legislate tonight—on the issue of dirty Russian money in these islands, but miss a trick by not also cleaning up our politics of said dirty Russian money. Countless warnings have been sounded on this issue, most notably in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which flagged up the vulnerability of our politics to Putin’s influence in cyber and in funnelling money into some political parties and referendum campaigns.

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

The point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was that so much of this Bill has been so slow in being forthcoming. There were huge delays in publishing the Russia report. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns that, given the report’s findings of Russian influence in British politics, that was another act by a Government who were perhaps benefiting from that?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that. Even the Minister who is piloting the Elections Bill through in the Commons admitted that she had not read the Russia report, so it is no surprise that the Government are so ignorant towards it. It is an indisputable, though regrettable, fact that the Conservative party has previously accepted donations from people who have ties to the Kremlin. Such gifts to the party are legally, if not ethically, legitimate, in so far as they are within current electoral law when properly declared. However, lines have been drawn between senior Conservatives and some pretty unsavoury characters.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between David Linden and Cat Smith

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr Paisley. It is helpful.

As I was saying, the Government of the day have the power to define the parameters of the boundary review. The question of a 600-seat or 650-seat Parliament is an example of how the Executive can determine the outcome of the process, so there is already some political engagement in it.

We believe that bringing the review to Parliament for a vote of Members is an important safety net, so that parliamentary scrutiny can ensure that the outcome will work for the whole country. For example, the Government knew at the last review that the 600-seat review would probably be rejected by a cross-party majority of MPs in Parliament. The Labour party has big concerns that, with the changes the Bill will make to the way reviews are done, bad reviews could in future be enforced, and there would be no safety net by way of scrutiny in the House to catch them.

In his oral evidence to the Committee, Sir John Curtice said it would be

“perfectly possible for a future House of Commons”,

if an Administration did not like the boundary recommendations,

“to introduce a quick piece of primary legislation”.––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 94, Q176.]

Such legislation could delay the boundary review again. In short, the Bill removes power from Parliament and hands it to the Executive. For those reasons, we have tabled the amendments and new clauses in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to see you back in the Chair and in charge, Mr Paisley. I repeat on the record the remarks that I made on Second Reading regarding the view of the Scottish National party. We would prefer not to be represented in this place at all, but for so long as the constitutional requirement is that Scotland remains tied to the United Kingdom, Scotland should have no fewer than the 59 seats that we have in this place.

I echo much of what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said regarding parliamentary approval. Our fundamental position is that we did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading because we wanted to see it come to Committee. I genuinely believe that the Minister is a thoughtful person, who will consider arguments on their merits. I hope that in the course of today’s sitting and the two sittings next week, she will take on board the amendments tabled not just by the SNP and Plaid Cymru but by the Labour party, which have been tabled with a view to making the Bill better, and making it work for our democratic process.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood is right about parliamentary approval. I have difficulty with the proposal. I listened to Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick give evidence, and I have genuinely wrestled with where we should end up on parliamentary approval. I am afraid that I probably still maintain my position on Second Reading: I am uncomfortable with a process wherein Parliament does not have the final say, because of what we saw in the last Parliament, during which the Government decided that they would try to plough ahead with 600 seats. They lost their majority over the course of that Parliament, but the whole process underlined the need for Parliament to have the final say, and I wish to put that on record.

Parliamentary Constituencies bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between David Linden and Cat Smith

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

Q Finally, is there anything else in the Bill that the DUP has any concerns about?

Gavin Robinson: I believe it is wrong to move away from parliamentary approval. I see the proposal is to remove the ministerial ability for amendment and to remove the ability for Parliament ultimately to approve the proposals. Parliamentary approval is an important constitutional dimension that should be retained. It is a bulwark against proposals that do not rest well with our body politic, and I do not think the removal from Ministers of the ability to amend is in any way commensurate with the removal of Parliament’s ability to approve the proposals. The Minister will know better than I, but I am unaware of any fundamental use of the Minister’s ability to amend. We are all aware, however, of Parliament’s ability to inject itself and determine one way or another whether proposals should proceed. So we are concerned about the loss of parliamentary approval in the process.

[David Linden]

Q I am grateful to Mr Robinson for appearing before the Committee. He is obviously a Unionist, and I am not, but can he see the fundamental problem that people in Scotland and Wales may have in seeing Northern Ireland getting to keep its 18 seats while they get lesser representation in the House of Commons, from a Unionist point of view?

Gavin Robinson: Arguments can be made for solidifying the number of constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom, but I do not think there should be any rationale that precludes me from advancing an argument that is important for Northern Ireland on our political context and make-up. On our number of electors, at this moment in time we have sufficient electors for 17.63 constituencies, leading to the 18 constituencies, and we have that additional flexibility on rule 7.

Mr Linden, you are more than capable of advancing arguments that are important for Scotland, as indeed is Mr Lake for Wales. I think it is appropriate that the concerns highlighted about a cyclical reduction that could potentially arise through future reviews—a cyclical reduction or increase of parliamentary boundaries, and the knock-on consequence that would have for devolved Administrations—should be considered more generally, but I will advance the argument on Northern Ireland’s behalf.

Parliamentary Constituencies bill (First sitting)

Debate between David Linden and Cat Smith

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 18th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

Q In areas where electoral wards are much larger—some cities, certainly in England, have wards of almost 10,000 electors—would those communities be seen as more difficult to fit into the 5% without splitting wards?

Tony Bellringer: Yes is the short answer. As you say, particularly in England we work or we have traditionally worked on the basis of using wards as our building blocks—I am sure there will be some discussion about that in due course. But as you say, a number of wards, particularly in urban authorities in England, are larger than the entire possible range that you are permitted—the difference, I should say—so by moving one ward, you will move from being too big as a constituency to being too small, with nothing in between, so you then have to start looking at splitting the wards, which becomes more problematic for us, for reasons that I am sure we will get on to.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Q It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I have perhaps three or four questions that I would like to ask Ms Drummond-Murray. First, most of us here are quite pleased that the Government have decided to change their position and let us remain at 650 seats, but I understand that even with the protection of 650 seats for the UK Parliament, Scotland would lose seats under this review. Is that a point that you can clarify, and what would be the reduction for Scotland?

Isabel Drummond-Murray: It is not possible to give an answer to that until we have the electorate data that the review will be based on. I think, informally, we did look at the December ’19 register, and if that were the one being used, it did suggest a reduction in seats in Scotland. Clearly, the Bill as drafted suggests the December ’20 register. Until we get those figures published, from whichever data is finally proposed by the Bill, we cannot tell you exactly how many seats there would be. We would have to run the formula that Tony referred to, and that would allocate between the four countries.

Parliamentary Constituencies bill (Second sitting)

Debate between David Linden and Cat Smith

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 18th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

My final question. We have the representative of the Conservative and Unionist party before us, and you have acknowledged that Wales looks set to take a hit. It looks to be the most badly affected of all the nations of the United Kingdom in the review. What assessment do you make about the integrity of the Union in terms of the consequences of this boundary review and Welsh voices in this place?

Roger Pratt: I think the Union is intact. The whole of the Union will have the same quota. It is absolutely right that everywhere in the United Kingdom has a quota and so every person in the United Kingdom has the same representation. The difference in Scotland and Wales is that they have a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Parliament. They still have equal representation in the UK Parliament, which I think is absolutely right, but clearly the Members for Glasgow East and Ceredigion do not have responsibility in this place for health and education, whereas all the other Members on the Committee do.

Scotland has a slight advantage over the rest of the United Kingdom, quite rightly in terms of the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. I fully support that. However, it means that—slightly—Scotland has an advantage over the rest of the United Kingdom because those are very small seats. I do not object to that in any way. The Union is intact because everybody’s vote counts equally whatever part of the United Kingdom they come from.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Q I want to follow on from the last question. On the issue of equality within the United Kingdom, it was the view of the Conservative party for quite some time that the number of seats should be reduced to 600. Am I right in thinking that your view is now in line with the Government’s—that it should be 650?

Roger Pratt: Correct, yes. I am fully supportive of 650.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

Q Finally, with regard to the register that is used to draw up the boundaries, the Government have tabled an amendment to the Bill to use the March 2020 register. What are your thoughts on that, and do you have any concerns about the accuracy of that register?

Tom Adams: I very much welcome the move from December 2020 to March 2020. Obviously, the Minister will be aware that we have raised significant concerns about this, in the earlier engagement with political parties. We still have some concerns about the impact of people dropping off the register even between 12 December 2019 and March. Obviously that will be less significant compared with December 2020, but just in our rough estimations looking at it now, it does look likely that a few hundred thousand people will have dropped off the register in that time, because obviously there are areas where people move a lot and there is high turnover of population.

On 12 December there was a general election, so that register will be the most complete a register is going to be. To my mind, it makes sense to use that one, although obviously I strongly welcome the use of 2 March as compared with December 2020, when I think the impact on the annual canvass of coronavirus will have been quite significant. I think the 12 December one would be better: it will be more complete and a better representation of the actual electorates in these places. But 2 March is certainly preferred to December 2020.

[David Linden]

Q Mr Adams, you are director of data and targeting. I think we all know that a lot of what you do is probably running numbers through spreadsheets. Have you run a number through your spreadsheet as to how many seats Scotland and Wales would lose under these proposals?

Tom Adams: Obviously, the commissions did publish the numbers on this, but broadly, there is likely to be a loss of three seats for Scotland and a loss of eight seats for Wales. Obviously, that might change slightly, depending on exactly which register you use, but it is going to be in that region of change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

Q Thank you so much for joining us, Mr McCobb. Given that we do not have a Liberal Democrat member of the Committee, could you outline any concerns about the content of the Bill?

Dave McCobb: Thanks very much. Our primary concern is about the restrictiveness of the 5% threshold in terms of equalising the electorates in constituencies. There have been widespread reports of the degree of under-registration of electors in many parts of the country and of the number of people who are not correctly registered. Setting a very restrictive threshold at 5% reduces the commission’s flexibility to recognise that significant under-registration is likely in some parts of the country.

It also means that constituencies could be constructed incredibly arbitrarily. In the previous round of the review —the proposals that were ultimately never implemented— many constituencies were constructed that really bore no reference to identifiable communities with which people who lived there would identify. That impacted cities in England particularly, where, due to the size of local government wards, the number of wards that needed to be added together could not be done within local authority boundaries. So very arbitrary constituencies were constructed including chunks of some local authorities, and they really bore no reference to communities that people would identify with. That could be eliminated by having a higher threshold of 10%, for example. That would be the No. 1 concern about the proposals as they are currently outlined.

[David Linden]

Q Thank you very much for coming before the Committee, Mr McCobb. As I have asked other representatives, because you guys tend to be the kind of folk who run numbers through spreadsheets, have you run these numbers through the spreadsheet and found the seats per nation? The reason I ask is that Scotland, for example, currently has 59 seats in the UK Parliament. Have you run the numbers to see how many seats Scotland would have under these proposals?

Dave McCobb: I have not personally, no. That would be done by a colleague who is not currently in work. In terms of the overall distribution of seats between the four nations, that is something that I would not want to comment on until we actually see the registered totals that will be published for the electoral register that will be used for this.

I would like to bring it back to the 5% threshold. When I have been involved in cross-party talks on this, colleagues from the SNP have rightly raised concerns that the 5% threshold would require the creation of some geographically enormous constituencies in the highlands of Scotland and potentially in other parts of rural England and Wales.

Anyone who knows otherwise may correct me if I am wrong, but someone once told me that the constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire is larger than Luxembourg. It would require a constituency that is already that geographically large—the same applies to parts of the highlands of Scotland, too—to be 25-30% bigger to meet the 5% threshold. That is likely to make it very difficult to represent or campaign in a constituency on that scale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

Q On a slightly different issue, are there circumstances where the electoral quota could be relaxed to avoid ward splitting? The Committee has been exploring that throughout the day. For example, could you imagine it making more sense for a constituency to have a 5.5% variance than to split wards? Would that be preferable?

Scott Martin: I certainly think that work could be done on changing the variance, which is effectively half the gains I talked about as a permissible departure in relation to the Venice Commission “Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters”. The question of wards is rather different in Scotland than in England. Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland are based on wards, with no ward splitting. Of course, before the 2007 Scottish Parliament and local government elections in Scotland, we moved to three or four-member wards. The consequence is that you cannot get sensible constituencies without splitting wards, particularly with the hard limit put in place as a result of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It is a rather different situation in Scotland, for practical reasons, as a consequence of the size of wards we have.

[David Linden]

Q I think I put on record on Second Reading that my preference was for either a minimum of 59 seats in Scotland, or zero with independence. Certainly the latter would be my preference, but I appreciate that we are not quite at that moment, though I am sure it is coming soon.

I want to ask about parliamentary approval. You will note that in the Bill, Parliament’s approval role is being removed. Can you share your view on that?

Scott Martin: That is, in a sense, a highly political question. Do you want politicised districting—everyone has difficulty with that word—or independent districting? Do you want the model they have in the United States, where the word “gerrymander” comes from? The logic is that if you have an independent commission model, which we have had here since the commissions were put on a permanent footing, the ability for political interference is minimised. Automaticity, as it has been described, is a sensible approach to take on that—although clearly, as we have seen from a variety of reviews, including the last two, ultimately, if Parliament wants to stop a review, or wants to proceed or another basis, that can happen, but unless we move to having a written constitution, which I would obviously support, that is not something that we can legislate for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

Q Finally, this question might stray beyond what you have considered, but what challenges do you foresee for the Welsh boundary commissioners in delivering a boundary review?

Professor Wyn Jones: I think we all recognise that commissioners always have a terribly difficult job to do, because there will be particular communities that feel a sense of association with some communities and less so with others.

Assuming this legislation reaches the statute book, the challenge for the Welsh commissioners is particularly daunting, because Wales would see the biggest level of change. That will be an enormous challenge, and there will be communities in Wales that feel that the changes being imposed are unwelcome; there is no doubt about that. I am an Anglesey boy, an Ynys Môn boy—I can well foresee that people at home will be extremely unhappy. I am sure that there will be different valleys and different communities thinking, “Well, we don’t really have much in common with the people over the other side of the ridge”, and so on and so forth.

So the challenge will be substantial. I think that my predecessor on this call, Geraint Day, pointed to a recent example around Ceredigion, where people felt that the commissioners had got it wrong, and fair play to the commissioners—they went back and changed things in a way that was regarded as being more acceptable. And I have no doubt that there will be lots of that.

[David Linden]

Q Thank you, Professor, for appearing before the Committee. Before the election, which obviously conjured up a very good result for the Conservative party, the Government were absolutely resolute in their view that they wanted to have 600 seats, and then they made quite a sudden change after the election to go for 650 seats. Why do you think that was?

Professor Wyn Jones: I do not really have that level of insight into the minds of the people involved. All I would say is that I spoke to Conservative MPs in Wales about this—I spoke to many of them because, as you probably have guessed, my views about this issue are not always particularly popular among Welsh MPs, and several of them were very keen to put me right. But it was very clear from a very early point that the reduction from 650 was not politically viable and that the Conservatives would have real issues, in terms of whipping their own MPs to support it.

It was certainly made clear to me very early on that, in all likelihood, the last attempt at reform would fail and that we would be coming back to this issue, and that we would be coming back to it with 650 MPs as the aim. And the people who I spoke to at that time were correct.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between David Linden and Cat Smith

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Public Bill Committees

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I apologise, Chair, for being late; I have sprained my wrist. One of the issues about the size of constituencies is that one of the proposed constituencies under the new boundary review in Scotland would be the size of Cyprus. That is not practically possible. There is a wider point here, because when we lose all our Members of the European Parliament and Parliament takes back control, we will have fewer MPs to scrutinise all this legislation. Then, when they go back to their constituencies, they will have to try to get around by helicopter, given the size of the constituencies the Government are proposing.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I wish him a speedy recovery with his arm, which looks very painful.

I think we are all largely in agreement that the boundary review is needed; that is not something I am arguing against. Updating boundaries is a vital part of the functioning of our electoral system. However, it has to proceed in a way that benefits our democracy and not just one political party. The political case presented by the Government for reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600 is completely flawed. The Hansard Society found no rationale for the Government’s decision, noting that there was a “real concern” that the number had been,

“plucked from thin air—600 simply being a neat number.”

Cutting 50 MPs also presents a “crisis of scrutiny”, a concern raised by the Electoral Reform Society. The Government’s current plan, to reduce the number of MPs in Parliament without reducing the number of Ministers, will only increase the power of the Executive. That will make it more difficult for Back Benchers to challenge the Government, which in turn will reduce Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account. As we are witnessing today, the Government fear challenge, loathe scrutiny and have no respect for Back Benchers.

The need for parliamentary scrutiny has never been greater as our nation prepares to leave the European Union. As the hon. Member for Glasgow East mentioned, to lose 50 MPs at the same time as taking back powers from Brussels risks leaving the UK Government struggling to keep up with the day-to-day requirements of legislation. In short, what seemed like a good idea in 2011 is very different in 2018, because so much has changed. As MPs’ workload looks set to rise—

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between David Linden and Cat Smith

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Public Bill Committees

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton for his remarks about his Bill. We all recognise that the review is much needed. It presents an opportunity for cross-party agreement on new boundaries.

I share my hon. Friend’s disappointment that a money resolution has not been forthcoming from the Government, because in December this House sent a strong message that we wanted the Bill to be considered in Committee. It passed its Second Reading by 229 votes to 44. I am sure that the Government would not want there to be a perception that not providing for a money resolution might be an attempt to sabotage a private Member’s Bill and, after all, the will of the House. They would not want it to be presented as an attempt to seek political advantage.

It is widely accepted that the boundary review in its current form would be a disaster for our democracy for various reasons, the most important of which would be the cutting of the number of MPs without a reduction in the number of Ministers. That would only increase the power of the Executive and make it more difficult for Back Benchers such as my hon. Friend to challenge the Government. However, as we have seen, there is no money resolution, and that sends a dangerous message. It concerns the respect that should be accorded to Back Benchers who have had success in the private Member’s Bill ballot, and their ability to bring forward measures for us to consider.

Constitutional changes should be dealt with fairly, and everyone should have a voice. Sadly, that is not happening this morning. I urge the Government to see to the matter of a money resolution at the earliest opportunity so that the Committee can get on with the vital work that we intend to do.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.

The Scottish National party’s perspective on the Bill, in outline, is that we support it. We should like to amend it in one or two areas and, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton has explained, it is impossible for us to do so until the Government provide a money resolution. The Government regularly talk about Parliament taking back control. The Brexiteers in the Government talk about it. An hon. Member has now secured, through the ballot, the ability to introduce the Bill; the House voted fairly unanimously for it to go into Committee; and the Government are leaving it in political purgatory by not dealing with the money resolution.

I want to make it clear that the SNP will not accept a 10% cut in the number of Scotland’s MPs. We want to amend the Bill, but as we know, we can do that only after a money resolution. I do not want to spend endless weeks in a Committee talking shop. Parliament has spoken and it is up to the Government to respect that. If they do not, I think they will find that the consequences will be quite severe.

The situation brings us back to the fundamental point that Westminster is a place of limited democracy, which is exactly what the Government’s behaviour shows. That state of affairs should end immediately. There should be a money resolution, and we should get on with the job.