Avanti West Coast Contract Renewal

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Foster

Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Certainly we are keen that Avanti should honour all its contractual obligations. The one on which we are most focused is ensuring that it improves the operation of the railway but, similarly, we would want to consider the other commitments that it made—the progress that has been made on them and how it is honouring them—as part of the longer-term decision.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I probably spend more time on the Avanti west coast main line than anyone in the Chamber. Its performance is simply appalling, and the Minister saying that it must improve is like me turning to my son and daughter and saying, “Don’t eat anything from the biscuit tin again”, then walking away and leaving the biscuit tin in front of them. The reality is that under the Avanti franchise, staff morale has been driven into the ground. The company has engaged in horrendous industrial relations with the trade unions, and it is running the service into the ground in the full expectation that it will lose it in six months’ time. Why does the Minister not just do the right thing, take the contract from Avanti, and follow the example of the Scottish Government and bring it back into public ownership?

Principles of Democracy and the Rights of the Electorate

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Foster

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I will not take interventions, given that I have given up time to allow more Members to contribute to the debate.

We are also looking at reforming the annual canvass and are working constructively with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The system is great at identifying people who have lived in one location for a long time, but we want to reform it, through the use of databases and other information, so that it targets other communities that we also want on the electoral register. We want a modern system. Fundamentally, the system originated in the 19th century, when heads of household would register to vote on behalf of the whole household, but that does not reflect modern lifestyles. It also means that resources are not targeted to getting the most vulnerable on the roll.

It has been good to hear some of the other speeches. I cannot go through them in detail, but I certainly enjoyed the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) and for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), especially when they talked about picking and choosing results. It is interesting to see how referendums described as once in a generation or once in a lifetime, with people told, “You have the power in your hands to make a sovereign choice,” suddenly, a couple of years later, become a matter of, “Actually, we’d like to have a rethink, please, and it was only an opinion poll.” In fact, referendums are different: people are told that they will make the decision and it will be binding.

People know my views on the separation of the Union; I think it would be a hugely retrograde step. However, had that been the decision of the Scottish people in 2014, we would have had to vote through the legislation. We cannot pick and choose which result we respect.

[David Linden]

Is it not true that the Cabinet Office has done polling on Scottish independence? If it has, will it release it?

[Kevin Foster]

The Cabinet Office conducts polling on a range of issues. There is no shortage of opinion polls on Scottish independence. I enjoyed seeing the separatists’ response to a recent poll: they complained that the poll was unfair because the question was about whether people wanted to remain in the United Kingdom. They thought that people being asked to remain in something was unfair, which is interesting, given their views on other topics. It was the Scottish National party itself that described the Scottish independence referendum as a once-in-a-generation event; now, only a few years later, the duration of a generation appears to have become extremely brief.

The key principle of our democracy is to give voters a choice. Just over three years ago, this Parliament gave voters a choice on whether this country would remain a member of the European Union. We had a strong debate and campaigns up and down the country. Not one person said, “Well, if you feel like voting, it’s next week, but it won’t make much of a difference.” No one said that; everyone said that whatever the decision, it would be implemented. Here we are, a few years later, having had a general election in which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office pointed out, more than 80% of voters voted for a party that said it would respect the referendum result, and it still has not been implemented. That is where we see the principle: we cannot pick and choose which votes we respect. That is especially true of those who voted for the legislation to hold a referendum, took part in the campaign, argued their case and then, almost from the day after, decided that respecting the result was an optional extra.

This Government will remain focused on our programme not just to deliver Brexit, but to defend our democracy overall. In part, that involves making sure that we protect the ballot by bringing in the long-recommended system of voter identification, replacing an identity check that dates from the 19th century, when only a very small percentage of men could vote, with a modern system similar to ones used in many other democracies, and remarkably similar to the system used in Northern Ireland introduced by the Labour party. We will also seek to improve accessibility and make sure that more people can get to the polling station and cast their vote.

It is welcome that the Government tabled the motion. I expected that those who have spent most of the past two days attacking the Government and running down the Prime Minister, saying they had no great confidence in the Government, would try to test that confidence, but sadly they decided they did not want to do that. Normally in our democracy, the Opposition are itching to replace the Government. This must be one of the first times in history that the main Opposition have not tabled a motion of no confidence in the Government because they think they might win. It has been remarkable to see.

When a general election does come—an election we have already offered, which makes it interesting to hear about constituents being gagged when it is the other side who are blocking the election and we are the ones offering it—people had better consider who reflects their principles and their choices. When they do that, they will inevitably conclude that my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) is far more likely to deliver what they want than the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Foster

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Dearie me! The SNP need to stop misrepresenting the review. A key part of its terms of reference states that it will

“need to respect and support the current devolution settlement”.

It is about how the UK Government can work better with the devolved Assemblies and Governments. The SNP should be welcoming the review, instead of trying to foster yet another false grievance.

[David Linden]

The Scottish and Welsh Governments recently wrote to the Minister expressing disappointment that 15 months on a review about intergovernmental relations has stalled owing to the Government’s unwillingness to make reforms. Will the Minister commit to addressing in detail each of the points in that letter, including the one on a strengthened dispute resolution process?

[Kevin Foster]

Constructive discussions continue on the intergovernmental review and its structure, although it has been slightly hamstrung by the lack of a Government in Northern Ireland. We hope that that can be resolved in the near future. We will of course consider all submissions with respect, because ultimately we all need to agree the way forward.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Thirtieth sitting)

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Foster

Committee Debate: 30th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th April 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Kevin Foster)]

Thank you, Mr Owen. I look forward to working with you in the spirit of co-operation and positive engagement, so that we can do the best for those we seek to represent and serve.

I thank Members for their best wishes to me on taking on this new role and I will ensure that their best wishes are passed on to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North, who starts her maternity leave this week. It is a sign of a modern, inclusive Parliament that we have arrangements in place to ensure that taking on the role of Government Minister does not require a choice between having a family and pursuing a ministerial career.

I am happy to support the motion and the proposal to sit on 5 June. Having been at the other sittings on the Benches behind, it would be disappointing if I were now to find that this was the last sitting, and that I would no longer see my friends the hon. Members for Glasgow East and for Manchester, Gorton at 10am on Wednesdays. As they are aware, the House has considered since Second Reading whether the Bill should proceed and be considered in this Committee without a money resolution, and it has decided that that should not be the case. The Government have made clear, through the usual channels, their view on a money resolution.

That said, reports have been laid before the House from the independent boundary commission, and the work on the order that will be necessary to bring before Parliament continues although, as Hon. Members will appreciate, it is a lengthy and complex document, which will require significant preparation before being presented.

[David Linden]

Can the Minister update the House on the progress of that document? Is it 25%, 50% or 75% done? Surely the Minister will have some idea from the civil servants what kind of progress they are making. Can he give the Committee an indication of the percentage of progress in that respect?

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Gentleman will realise that statutory instruments are not completed by a third, a half or a quarter, but once orders are prepared, they are ready to come before the House. It is a complex motion, given that it covers every street and house in the United Kingdom, in terms of ensuring that they are appropriately represented in this place. It will be submitted in due course.

Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Foster

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I am conscious that I could probably expand this debate widely into legal services and the impact potentially from the recognition of judgments between different jurisdictions. A lot of people forget that the EU is not a sovereign state—I do not want it to be and nor does my hon. Friend. It is a creature of treaty, and its actions and rules are therefore effective only through the structures of member states—that is, recognition of court judgments that enforce EU law between different jurisdictions. He is right that if we go out under a no-deal scenario, from Brexit day plus one, that level of co-operation and recognition is unlikely. That is why this SI is needed. Bizarrely, the enforcement of these EU regulations could be pursued in courts across the EU, or even in our own courts, and meanwhile, a judgment looking to enforce to the benefit of a British company would not be recognised at all. It would basically be a bit of paper someone would get.

We keep coming back to the fact that if people do not want this type of outcome, they have two choices. There is the Scottish National party’s choice, which is to revoke article 50—[Interruption.] We can hear the cheers coming from SNP Members. Or we can put through the withdrawal agreement. That is where we are. We can talk about whether we should be in a particular type of customs arrangement, what we would like on security and defence, and whatever. At the end of the day, the withdrawal agreement is the gateway to every relationship with the EU, other than revocation or no deal.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

I will happily give way to my friend, the hon. Gentleman.

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Are we not facing a Hobson’s choice? The hon. Gentleman says that we need to support the deal that is before us, but one of the things that I am struck by sitting in this debate is that we were meant to leave the European Union on Friday, yet we are dealing with a statutory instrument on the subsequent Tuesday. Is not the issue that the Government have forced us into this position because the Prime Minister, through her intransigence, set her red lines—like these red lines on the floor that have kept us on this side in this House—and said, “We do not want to listen”? That is why three or four days after we were meant to leave the EU, we now find ourselves being rammed into this position by Her Majesty’s Government.

[Kevin Foster]

Let us be candid: we are here because there are those in this House who do not want Brexit to go ahead, who voted against the withdrawal agreement—to be fair, that is a principled position from the SNP. This is combined with those who see it as a chance to score some political points, and there are some Government Members who think—perhaps wrongly—that there might be a different type of Brexit if they resist the withdrawal agreement. I am afraid that they might find themselves with an outcome that is more pleasing to the hon. Gentleman than it is to them, if their position continues.

Let us be clear: the Scottish National party and the Government in Scotland suggested after the referendum that basically, as long as we only left the fisheries policy, they would be happy with Brexit. In terms of staying in the single market and the customs union, it would be debatable whether we would even come out of the common fisheries policy—

[David Linden]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

I will give way again in a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to offer a point of clarification.

That outcome would not really be about delivering any real benefits from the referendum. To be fair, I note that the SNP’s position is firmly that it wants to stay in the EU. That is a respectable point. I accept that we do not need the withdrawal agreement for that, but the nonsense comes when people say, “I want one of the outcomes where I have to have the withdrawal agreement, but I am now going to vote against the withdrawal agreement.”

[David Linden]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is one of my genuine friends in this place. He is right that in 2016, the Scottish Government said, “We campaigned for remain. We did not want to leave the European Union,” but we realised very early on that because of the democratic deficit that exists in this House, we had to compromise. That is why “Scotland’s Place in Europe” looked at membership of the single market and the customs union. We compromised in 2016 when it was very, very unpopular to do so. There has been a process of evolution: we have gone from that compromise to what I accept is a very hard-nosed reality, where the only thing that we can do to protect our economy is to revoke article 50. Does he not agree, however, that it might just have helped things in 2016 if that spirit of compromise had evolved a bit sooner in this place and that we might not have found ourselves, three or four days after the scheduled exit, debating a statutory instrument that could have profound consequences, depending on what happens over the next few days?

[Kevin Foster]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We can all look back over the past three years and suggest that there were things that we might have done differently or changed.

“If? What? Could?” is great fun to play—hindsight has 20/20 vision—but the other 27 member states have their own red lines. The idea that if I or the hon. Gentleman had walked in as the UK Prime Minister, everyone would have said, “Ah, it’s you! What can we do for you? Let’s offer you a great deal” is for the birds. The other member states would still have had their own red lines.

As I said, the only things for which a negotiated deal is not necessary are a complete no deal and revoking and remaining—the latter for obvious reasons—but if we want a negotiated deal, we need the prism of a withdrawal agreement. There is a strong argument for saying that even if we did go down the no-deal route, we would find at some stage that if we wanted a free trade agreement, the first three items on the EU’s agenda would be: clarifying citizens’ rights, which is not particularly controversial across the House; a financial settlement—that might be where a debate comes in; and arrangements to keep the land border in Northern Ireland open. Whether under a withdrawal agreement now or a free trade agreement in the future, those three issues will almost certainly be the basis of any agreement, no matter which of the panoply of Brexit ideas we have been treated to over the last year or two the House, and ultimately the country, decides upon. Once the divorce process is complete, the second phase of negotiations and decision making in the House remain.

Great though it would be to settle Brexit this afternoon, it is time that I return to the substance of the SI: the geo-blocking regulation. [Interruption.] I hear shouts of joy from the shadow Front Bench. Geo-blocking sounds like something to do with a map—a rambler might find their geo-signal being blocked—but it is actually one part of making sure we have a single market online as we do for physical goods. Those of us who grew up in the late 1980s—I am not sure if my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) is old enough, and I am certain the Minister is not—will remember the debate about how much a particular CD or tape cost in the UK, the United States, Canada, Germany and other countries. Nine times out of 10 a CD produced in the same factory, with the same copyright and by the same company would be more expensive in certain countries—that excludes differing VAT rates, of course, because that could change the price in the shop; I am talking about the base cost excluding taxes.

The regulation tried to prevent different prices in different markets arising from differing charging and supply. Those of us who studied European law will know that the Commission tried to eliminate this grey market idea of trying to restrict or increase prices in particular markets across the EU single market—a single market that we will remain a part of during the implementation period, if the withdrawal agreement goes through. The regulation was about making sure the consumers had the full opportunities. Such regulations make a difference. It is eminently sensible that we revoke the regulation—I agree with the Minister’s reasoning, and, as I have said, it would be bizarre if British businesses were under an obligation that EU businesses were not but which EU businesses could enforce against us under our law—but having in place some other appropriate measure would make a difference.

I hope therefore that we could consider that in future trade agreements—and not just with the EU. I have just given the example of the US. With increasing online commerce and trading, we should look to open up to other jurisdictions that use the English language and have similar commercial standards, consumer protections and quality standards. Under future trade agreements, we should look to ensure that businesses large and small that are buying stuff in across our borders can benefit from free trade arrangements.

Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill

Debate between David Linden and Kevin Foster

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 11th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about ensuring the Bill is as flexible as possible, and I support some of the amendments he has tabled. I support all the amendments made in Committee. One of my concerns—my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and I tabled an amendment on this in Committee—is that a person will not fall within the scope of the Bill if they have been with their employer for fewer than 26 weeks. The Bill is all good and well, but does the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) share my concern that a person who has been with their employer for, say, 25 and a half weeks will not be covered? Would he support the Bill being extended to people who have been with their employer for fewer than 26 weeks?

[Kevin Foster]

Bereavement leave should be a day one right, and I am reasonably supportive of the hon. Gentleman’s idea, or at least of having an idea of how an employer should approach leave for employees who have worked for them for a very short period of time. I accept it is probably slightly different for people who have worked for their employer for a very short period of time, but I think we would all hope and expect an employer to behave reasonably, because clearly this is not something a parent will have planned. This is not a provision of which any parent wants to take advantage, far from it. I am sure every parent in the Chamber would hope they never have to take advantage of this provision. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response on how we set that limit.

Again, we do not want the ludicrous situation in which a person, for the sake of argument, has worked one day short of the limit—for example, the death happens at 11 o’clock at night and they would have been covered if it had happened at 1 o’clock in the morning. We do not want such a cliff edge. I will address another such issue in relation to other amendments.

I support the broad thrust of what the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) says, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister and perhaps the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, outline how they feel it should work so we do not have cliff edges. The whole point of the Bill is to have a position that reflects the devastating impact on people.

I am conscious that I have been on this theme for a little while, so it is probably time to move on to the fourth theme of my amendments. I touched on cut-offs in my response to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I am also concerned about the cut-off created by a child’s 18th birthday. My amendments 6 and 24, and amendment 21 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, would change the definition of a child so it refers not only to sons and daughters aged under 18.

I think we would all feel that losing a child is hard at any age. Sadly, in my own family, my grandmother Beryl lost her son Mike. Mike was 59 and, by that point, my grandmother was in her late 70s, but the impact on her was just as strong as it would have been had Mike been 12 and had she been 30. Of course, due to her age, she did not need to worry about time off work—she was already a pensioner—but the impact on her was just as significant. She had lost her son.

The law does not view a person aged over 18 as a child. The law rightly views them as an adult—they are able to make their own decisions and are able to participate in life—but the parent still views them as their child. Sadly, my grandmother outlived not only her son Mike but the two children of her second husband, Cyril, my maternal grandfather. Both my mother and my uncle died before my grandmother, both passing away in their 50s. The impact on my grandmother was quite profound. My mother was the last of the three to pass away, four years ago. My grandmother said, “Here’s me sat here at 85 with all the children”—as she viewed them—“gone.”

It makes logical sense that a child aged under 18 should clearly be covered by the Bill. That is unarguable, and it is absolutely right that the provisions also apply to stillbirths.