G20

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can confidently say that I do not think the idea of plan B was raised at any time during this meeting. It is interesting that Britain, Japan and America were all singled out as delivering stronger growth than expected and that is welcome for the world economy.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister accept that, although the vast majority of the British public want him to strain every sinew in humanitarian and diplomatic effort, they do not support military intervention in Syria and therefore welcome his correct judgment that the House of Commons has spoken and that he will not be bringing the matter back for a second vote?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, I have absolutely no intention of bringing the matter back in terms of British military action. I think that what happened in the debate is that a lot of Members of Parliament had listened to their constituents who were hugely concerned about the situation in Syria. Clearly, the British public are deeply sceptical about getting more involved in the Syrian conflict, but as politicians I think we all have a responsibility to try to separate from that, for a moment, the issue of chemical weapons and point out the dangers of not upholding that international taboo. Inevitably, however, all these subjects get meshed together.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am glad to have this opportunity to take part in this important debate. It seems that tonight Parliament has stepped back from the brink of giving the Prime Minister carte blanche to involve British forces in the bombing of Syria this weekend. I believe that the British public, whatever political party they support, will be glad that we have done so. We know—the polls tell us—that the public are overwhelmingly against such a military strike. The British public do not want to be drawn into yet another war in the middle east. They have seen that movie and know how it ends.

For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that had I been pressed by my own party to vote on a motion that authorised the bombing of Syria, in the current state of knowledge, I was always going to vote no—whatever the pressures and consequences. It would not have been a party political gesture, which some Government Members have mentioned. I was one of the Labour MPs who voted against their own Government on Iraq. I say to Government Members who may be wondering what to do tonight that I have never had reason to regret that vote.

It seems that the Prime Minister may be coming back to the House of Commons to authorise his war, and it may be helpful for me to set out my reservations as matters stand. The first question is about the facts. Have chemical weapons been used and who has deployed them? I heard what the Prime Minister said about the Joint Intelligence Committee and I know the opinion of Vice-President Biden. It is clear that the balance of probability is that Assad used chemical weapons. However, whatever the Americans say and the Joint Intelligence Committee conjectures, I do not believe that it is wise entirely to rule out the possibility that the chemical weapons were wielded by Assad’s opponents.

In these circumstances, we always have to ask, “Cui bono?”—“Who benefits?” Assad’s opponents know that only chemical weapons would trigger a reluctant President Obama to authorise a military intervention. Whatever the Prime Minister says, a military strike would inevitably tilt the scales of the civil war in favour of Assad’s opponents. Earlier, we heard that the UN investigator Carla Del Ponte said in May:

“according to testimonies we have gathered, the rebels have used chemical weapons, making use of sarin gas”.

They did it in May, and they may have done it again.

My other point is about legality. I have heard a lot about Kosovo and how in some sense it sets a precedent for this Syrian war. At the time of the Kosovan war, I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We carried out a major inquiry into Kosovo, taking a great deal of evidence about its legality. We took oral evidence from Professor Christopher Greenwood QC, Mark Littman QC and Professor Vaughan Lowe, among others, and there was a whole host of written evidence from others. What the all-party Select Committee concluded was that the Kosovo operation

“was contrary to the specific terms of what might be termed the basic law of the international community”.

We went on:

“at the very least, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention has a tenuous basis in current international customary law, and…this renders NATO action legally questionable.”

Those who want to rest the argument for a Syrian war on the Kosovan precedent need to read their law again.

Finally, let me say this. In the run-up to the Iraq war, Colin Powell cited the Pottery Barn rule—Pottery Barn is a string of American china shops. The rule is, “You break it? You own it.” The notion that we can make a military intervention on the narrow point of chemical weapons is disingenuous to say the least. Were we to intervene militarily in Syria, we would take ownership of the outcome of the civil war. I see no endgame, no idea of what victory would look like in those circumstances.

I am glad to be here to speak for my constituents. I will be glad to follow my leader into the Lobby tonight, but in my view we cannot support war in the House unless it has the stamp of the United Nations.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Debate on the Address

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker, for this early opportunity to make what will be a brief contribution to the debate. The debate coincides with ongoing family difficulties at home, so being able to get back to the highlands this evening rather than later is of very great assistance, and I am grateful for that. On that basis, I apologise to those on both Front Benches that, uncharacteristically, I will not be here for the wind-ups. I hope that they will understand.

As has been pointed out, this is the penultimate Queen’s Speech of this Parliament: there are now two years to go. I think that one political prediction on which we can all agree is that the next two years will go an awful lot more quickly than the last three years did. Whatever proposals are contained in the legislation outlined in the Queen’s Speech, the truth is that much of the politics in the next two years, and therefore at the next general election, will be conditioned not by what is in today’s speech, but by the wider economic scenario. We have welcomed the Queen to the Palace of Westminster today. Perhaps of more significance is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is welcoming the International Monetary Fund to the United Kingdom for its annual health audit. The implications for the economy will play as big a role in the next 18 months to two years as the proposals in front of us, important though they may be.

I welcome the reference in the Queen’s Speech to the second issue that will influence United Kingdom politics: the referendum in Scotland in 15 months’ time. The outcome will have a profound impact on not just Scottish politics, but UK politics in the run-up to the next Westminster general election. I was reassured to read that the Government

“will continue to make the case for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.”

Hear, hear. I give my unqualified support to the Deputy Prime Minister and the coalition on that. That case needs to be made, and is particularly significant coming from the coalition at Westminster. Even in the few months that have elapsed since January, when we debated the various orders that enabled the transference of powers to Edinburgh to hold the referendum and so on, it has been interesting to see the debate develop. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then. I will not comment one way or the other, but I will say that we need to hear, both in Scotland and in the UK as a whole, more constructive Conservative voices in the debate.

When I came to the House in 1983, there was still a very viable Scottish Tory presence here, but I saw it erode and erode and eventually fall off the edge of the cliff. I have always felt that that was extremely dislocating and unhealthy, not just for Scottish politics but, by implication, for United Kingdom politics as a whole. Although I am not in the business of trying to resurrect conservatism—my loyalty to the coalition does not extend quite as far as that—I think that, on any rational basis, it is clear that there will be a very skewed constitutional dialogue and debate if the traditional, historic and continuing authentic voice of conservatism is not heard, and does not have a degree of resonance. I think that that should be borne in mind during our discussions about Scotland’s role within the UK, which I hope will remain a vibrant and vital one.

Talk of Scotland remaining part of the UK prompts a further question, which, I believe, goes to much of the heart of the Queen’s Speech: what kind of United Kingdom do those of us who want Scotland to remain part of it wish to see? In that regard, I think that the Liberal Democrat voice—and I shall be directing my few remarks almost exclusively to my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat wing of the coalition—is essential at this particular juncture.

First we have, up in lights, the issue of immigration. There is a sensible, constructive, rational argument to be had about that issue, but it should be preceded by a statement of principle, which, I am delighted to say, my right hon. Friend the leader of my party and Deputy Prime Minister has made many times. There are those of us in the House, and on the spectrum of British politics, who are unapologetic and unashamed in saying that, historically as well as in contemporary terms, the immigrant contribution to our economy and the values of our society has been immensely positive. It is something to be encouraged and celebrated, and it is not something in respect of which a Dutch auction on the back of UKIP and various other kenspeckle figures should be indulged in when it comes to how best to pursue the issue. That is an important aspect of the Liberal Democrat voice that needs to be heard—

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Kennedy]

As, indeed, does the voice of the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington in regard to this very issue.

[Ms Abbott]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while we clearly want an efficient, fair immigration system which commands support, there is a danger of a downward spiral of anti-immigrant rhetoric which will not help anyone, and is in denial of the huge contribution that immigrants have made to this country over the years?

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak in this historic debate. It would be wrong not to pay tribute to Britain’s first woman Prime Minister.

I entered Parliament in 1987, when Mrs Thatcher was still Prime Minister in all her pomp and glory, and it is fair to say that she was a remarkable parliamentary phenomenon. She believed in Parliament as the cockpit of political debate, in a way that is perhaps not fashionable today, and she was often the leading lady—whether we agreed with her or not—in some of Parliament’s most momentous occasions.

The House will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with many of the things for which she stood. However, I rose this afternoon not to challenge her beliefs, but to remind the House very gently that, even after all the years that have passed since she stood down as leader of her party, there are still millions of people who felt themselves to be on the wrong side of the titanic battles that she fought. Whether they are people who felt that the poll tax had been imposed on them wrongly, whether they are young people who were caught up in the difficult relationships between police and communities in our inner cities, whether they are people who were dismayed by her unwillingness to impose economic sanctions on South Africa and by her insistence on calling the African National Congress a terrorist organisation, or whether they are people—and I mean communities—who were caught up in the miners’ strike, there are still people living today who felt themselves to be on the wrong side of those titanic struggles, and the House should not make it appear that their voice cannot be heard.

Many Members from mining communities are present today, and they will have their say, but let me quote from another Conservative leader, Harold Macmillan. In his first speech in the House of Lords as Lord Stockton, he said:

“Although…I cannot interfere…it breaks my heart to see what is happening in our country today. A terrible strike is being carried on by the best men in the world. They beat the Kaiser’s army and they beat Hitler’s army. They never gave in.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1984; Vol. 457, c. 240.]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the titanic political struggles that she fought—Conservative Members have spoken about them at length—let us remember that in their hearts some of those communities never gave in and deserve to have a voice in the House this afternoon. I am happy to pay tribute to her historic significance and her historic role, and I know that history is written by victors, but those of us who came of age in the Thatcher era know that there was another side to the glories that Government Members have spoken about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I listen very carefully to my hon. Friend, but Sir Howard Davies says in his review that this is a complicated issue that merits proper examination, which will take time. We need, as a country, to make major decisions on airports and airport capacity. We should aim as far as possible to try to make those decisions on a cross-party basis. I hope the Howard Davies report helps that to happen.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Q13. Last night’s vote on same-sex marriage is widely regarded as a historic vote. Does the Prime Minister agree that the vote is a tribute to the people down the decades who have worked—in all parties and no party, behind the scenes and in public—for such equality? Does he also agree that the vote proves that the arc of history bends slowly, but bends towards justice?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree very much with the hon. Lady. Last night’s vote will be seen not just as one that ensured a proper element of equality, but one that helps us to build a stronger and fairer society. Many of the speeches made last night were very moving and emotional. I pay tribute to all those people who have made the case—some have made it for many years—that they want their love to count the same way as a man and woman’s love for each other counts. That is what we have opened in this country, and why I am proud this Government brought it forward.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am pleased to support this very important Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, who have been part of the process that has brought the Bill to the Floor of the House. I want to speak about stigma; about the policy challenges posed by mental health; and about why this Bill is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said.

Mental health is probably the last remaining great area of stigma in public life. It is striking that there were Members of Parliament willing to come out about their sexuality before Members of Parliament were willing to come out about their mental health challenges. That speaks to the level of stigma around mental health. The reasons for that stigma are worth touching on. First, it is partly about the very British notion that one has to keep calm and carry on, keep a stiff upper lip, have a cup of tea and get on with it. There is a sense that someone who has a mental health challenge has somehow failed personally. The stigma is also about sheer ignorance. I remember an appalling front page—I am sorry to mention this paper for the second time this week—that The Sun ran about Frank Bruno when he had his mental health problems: “Bonkers Bruno”. The Sun was shocked that thousands of people responded to that, which was an example of the public being ahead of their media. Of course, there is also fear involved. People are never so ignorant or so cruel as when they are frightened. Those things have fed the sense of stigma about mental health.

It is also important to talk about the policy challenges posed by mental health. For too long, mental health has been the orphan child of the health service. Many Members will know that their local mental health institutions and hospitals are often on the outskirts of their communities and cities, and that reflects how mental health has been seen. It is very important in the 21st century, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) feels passionately, that we offer a new deal on mental health—we welcome the Government’s mental health strategy—and that mental health and physical health are put on the same footing and get the same attention and proportionate funding.

Of course, mental health is about more than legislation. It is about resources, availability and the specific mental health needs of particular groups. We have heard about the mental health needs of the armed services. Yesterday I was at a health summit for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, where I heard about the unmet mental health needs in that community. We are seeing across the country rising levels of self-harm among our young people. The disproportionate numbers of black and minority ethnic people in our mental health hospitals and in our health system has long been a cause for concern.

Let me pause here and say to the House that last night my constituency party secretary, Greta Karpin, died. She was a brilliant and remarkable woman. We all have Greta Karpins in our local parties. Had she been born at another time and in another place, she would no doubt have been an MP or a Cabinet Minister. Greta was fortunate to die with all her faculties completely intact. In fact, she died on her way back from an executive party meeting, plotting about something or other, which I think is probably the way she would have wanted to go. Greta was in her late 70s and died with all her faculties intact, but that will not be true of all of us, or of all our friends and family. How we manage dementia and give help and support to the elderly who suffer from it is a huge policy challenge facing all of us.

We will debate big mental health policy issues in the House in the months and years to come, and I hope that we can find some measure of common ground on both sides of the Chamber. For example, for all the things I found problematic about the Health and Social Care Bill, moving responsibility for public health to local authorities offers the potential of making advances in mental health and tailoring provision to the particular needs of a particular community and groups within it.

Finally, I want to talk about why this Bill is important. As other Members have said—we have heard some excellent speeches from Members on both sides of the House—it is important because of the symbolism of what it says about public attitudes towards mental health. In having this debate, we signify that attitudes have changed, but we are also helping to move those attitudes on. I have spent a lifetime fighting discrimination in all its forms, and I know that despite all the things people say about MPs, Parliament and so on, what happens in this House is often pivotal and a signifier of a decisive change in the public mood.

This is an important Bill and I am glad to support it on behalf of my party and our entire health team. Many people outside the House will be watching this debate and feeling relieved and that things may be changing for them. Mental health is one of the huge policy challenges of the 21st century. We as a House need to do many practical things with regard to policy and organisational issues, but in lifting the veil of stigma, of signalling that public attitudes must change and of turning the corner on attitudes to public health, there will be no more important moments in this House than this Bill being agreed today.

Immigration

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nicholas Soames]

I will not; I will continue, if I may. The outcome was a total of 3.5 million foreign immigrants, during which time 1 million British citizens left our shores. As the Institute for Public Policy Research put it,

“It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under new Labour has changed the face of the country.”

All that took place in the teeth of public opinion, and without any proper consultation or debate. Public concern—indeed anger—has been mounting, and opinion polls paint an unmistakable and chastening picture. There are, of course, positive aspects. All of us know that immigration has had a positive effect on entrepreneurial skills, premier league football, film, music, art and literature, as well as on food and restaurants. None of that is in dispute but, as I have said, the issue is one of scale.

The most immediate effect of the wave of immigration has been on our population. The results of the 2011 census show that in the past 10 years, the population increase in England and Wales was the largest for any period since census taking began in 1801. Looking ahead, if net migration continues at 200,000 people a year—the average over the past 10 years—we will find that our population hits 70 million in 15 years’ time.

Let us be clear about what that means. We would see a population increase of 7.7 million people, nearly 5 million of whom would be purely as a result of new immigrants and their children. Numbers of that kind are hard to grasp, so let me put it like this: in the coming 15 years, just for new immigrants and their families, we will have to build the equivalent of eight of the largest cities outside the capital—Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Bradford, Bristol and Glasgow—together with the associated social infrastructure of schools, roads, hospitals, railways and all the rest. Perhaps those who support the continuation of mass immigration will explain where the money will come from to cope with such numbers, particularly at a time when the Government are borrowing £1 for every £4 they spend.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nicholas Soames]

I will not. There are some who try to wave away those figures on the basis that they are only projections. The fact is, however, that for the past 50 years the Office for National Statistics has been accurate to plus or minus 2.5% on its 20-year projections. The other claim is that Britain is not really crowded. That, of course, is a matter of opinion, and the public are crystal clear on it.

Faced with that chaotic situation, the Government have gone about things in the right way. They have carried out a careful and thorough review of the three major immigration routes: students, economic migration and marriage. I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the former Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), for their grasp of the issues and their determination to tackle them.

This House should be under no delusion: the public demand and expect the Government of this country to deal with and fix these matters. The most recent numbers are rather disappointing, but it is too early to expect any substantial effect on net immigration. Last week’s figures apply only to the first full year of the coalition Government, and that time was needed to review the complex system that they inherited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

As a second-generation migrant, may I ask what possible evidence does my right hon. Friend have that more than a tiny fraction of a fraction of second-generation migrants harbours “terrible thoughts”?

[Mr Field]

I have no evidence, but a constituent of mine was one of those who had their legs blown off in the London bombing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Ms Abbott]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, for the last time.

[Ms Abbott]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have been a Member of Parliament for 25 years? Year on year, I deal with thousands of immigration cases. There has never been a point in my time in the House when we have had uncontrolled immigration. That is mythology.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), because that is exactly the point. The idea that immigration is out of control is nonsense. We know that the Government’s ambition is to reduce immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands. It is not going to happen. What the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex and Members on the Government Benches fail to appreciate is that we live in an interconnected and globalised world where knowledge, ideas, creativity and talent are an international commodity. That of necessity means a transfer of people across continents and countries, and that is good for the global economy; it is good for our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who I thought made one of the most thoughtful speeches from his side of the House in this debate.

I have never shied away from debates about immigration. In fact, I find it odd to hear from people who think that it is very brave to argue, as this motion does, for a cut in immigration, as though those of us who have argued for immigrants’ rights over decades have had it easy. My experience has been completely to the contrary: those of us who have argued for immigrants’ rights have been those who have been most likely to be pilloried.

I have an interest in this debate as I have a brother, a sister and two uncles who are migrants. They have gone to the Bahamas, Canada and the USA, they have married people from third countries, and they have brought millions into those countries’ economies and added to their artistic and intellectual lives. They are an example, as are many of my constituents, of the positive impact of migration around the world.

[Ms Abbott]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is not immigrants’ rights but the need to have a fair and transparent immigration system based on the facts and not on urban myth? Does she agree that the response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) about who will pay for the houses and hospitals the immigrants need is quite simple? It will be hard-working immigrants who do so, through taxation.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. What I object to most about the motion is its focus on numbers and its failure to focus on the lives of human beings. That is the issue. If we are thinking about migration policy, the first thing we need to do is think about who the migrants are, what they are here for and what the benefits are to them, their families, the communities they come to and the country as a whole.

Frankly, there is a serious consequence of not starting from the question of the lives of human beings, and we saw it in the decision on London Metropolitan university, where there has been a collective punishment of perfectly legitimate students for the failure of the institution at which they registered in all good faith. I am not saying that every student was necessarily legitimate, but we know that those students who are and who fulfil all the requirements have been collectively punished, absolutely contrary to British traditions, for the failure of the institution in which they work. That is a consequence of trying to decide immigration policy not on its human consequences, but on some abstract numerical basis.

Some of the attempts that the Government have made to date to reduce immigration policy have had serious consequences. I want to take the opportunity of the new Minister’s presence in this debate to highlight some of them and to ask him to consider whether things are going in the right direction. A large group of migrants in my constituency have come here as family members of people who are already in this country. Recently, the immigration rules have been changed to require that if a family is to be united in such a way they need to earn, if they have one child, for example, £22,500. That is above the average wage of people who live in Slough. More than half of my constituents, if they marry someone from overseas, will be unable to be united with their spouse. That is cruel. It is unfair to have a means test on the right to a family life.

Public Disorder

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I was on the streets of Hackney at the height of the rioting on Monday night, and I know how frightened people were and remain. The most important thing is to regain control of our streets, but, on the Army, I am well aware how attractive the further militarisation of this situation is to some Members of this House and even to some of my constituents, but the Prime Minister will be aware that Sir Hugh Orde, who has ordered the firing of baton rounds and the use of water cannon in Northern Ireland, is against the use of such things in the current situation. I say to this House, whether it is a popular thing to say or not, that the further militarisation of the situation we face will not help and might bring things to an even worse level.

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me agree with what the hon. Lady said, I think very powerfully, about the fact that this was criminality on the streets, and about how frightened people were. I agree with Hugh Orde and others who say that now is not the time to take such steps. Government have a responsibility to ask about contingencies: to work out what will happen next, and what would happen if things got worse. Those are responsibilities that we take very seriously. Let us, however, take this opportunity to pay tribute to what the armed services often do in our own country when it comes to floods and other emergencies. They play an incredible role, and we should thank them for it.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on her brave speech.

I will support the Government in the Lobby tonight, partly because I genuinely believe that only swift action at the weekend avoided a bloodbath in Benghazi, and partly because I am convinced that we have a solid legal basis for the military action. That has not always been the case.

However, the Government would be wrong to take this evening’s vote as some sort of blank cheque. I point to the unsettling lack of real Arab involvement in the deployment so far. We know that the Arab League countries have plenty of military kit because we sold them most of it. Why is it not being deployed? Why are not senior Arab military people involved in the deployment?

Western-led bombardment of a Muslim country plays to the Gaddafi narrative of crusader invasion. We can knock Gaddafi, but that has a genuine visceral impact on the countries involved. There will be civilian casualties—there always are in such deployments—and it will not take many for public opinion in Arab countries to turn against the deployment. We should bear that in mind.

Let me remind the House of Colin Powell, the American Secretary of State who tried to argue against Iraq with his colleagues Bush and Cheney. He reminded them of the Pottery Barn rule. Pottery Barn is a chain in America that sells china. The rule is “You break it, you own it”. If we intervene with a massive military deployment in north Africa, we will inevitably own the development of the story from here.

I am not at all sure that civilians can be protected with Gaddafi in power. I do not know how Gaddafi can be removed through air bombardment alone. The British people are very humane and I think that they understand that we intervened swiftly to save lives in Benghazi. However, I do not believe that there is a will or a willingness among them for us to get dragged into a long-running civil war in north Africa because we follow the logic of our rhetoric.

I will vote for the letter of the resolution. It is not a blank cheque. It is not the will of my constituents or British people generally to give the Government a blank cheque. We have done the right thing so far, but, as other hon. Members have said, we want Front Benchers to return to the House for a full debate before we take any further steps, which could get us involved in a third war in a Muslim country in a decade.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman first.

[Mr Harper]

I did not say that we would do nothing about the problem. I specifically said the opposite—that the Government are looking carefully at the Electoral Commission’s report and its outline of the problem, and that we are considering possible solutions. We are not yet persuaded that a legislative solution is the right one, however. When we have decided what we think the appropriate solution is, if that requires legislation we will introduce it at the appropriate time. Also, if we were to make this change, we would need to make it for elections in the round, not just for this particular referendum.

[Ms Abbott]

The Parliamentary Secretary is in danger of understating the seriousness of the problem. My Hackney constituency was one of the places where this problem arose, and at the appropriate time I hope to expand on how serious an issue it was.

[Mr Harper]

I was not in any way underplaying the seriousness of the issue in those cases where these events happened. I was simply outlining the fact that it was not as widespread as people might have thought from the television coverage; I wanted to put it in context. However, as I said, I absolutely acknowledge that for those people who were affected, the problem was clearly very serious, and we want it to be solved, but we do not necessarily think that the proposal under discussion is the right way to solve it. There is a danger of creating as many, if not more, problems than those we are trying to solve in the first place. The law of unintended consequences might apply.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman raises two separate issues. The latter problem is clearly one that I hope does not arise, although he says it may well. If so, it must be managed on a case-by-case basis. We cannot make provision in legislation for that, but we want to make sure we solve the problem.

The hon. Gentleman’s first point about the combination of polls next year highlights exactly why we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission and officials who administer elections across the UK to put in place sensible combination provisions to ensure that the elections run smoothly. It will be for those responsible for delivering both the elections and a referendum to look at what the likely turnouts will be and what complexities might arise from the elections, particularly in places such as Northern Ireland where there may be a number of polls with different electoral systems, and to put plans in place. One of the things that the Electoral Commission will be examining, certainly as far as the referendum is concerned, is whether people on the ground have made those arrangements. I know that the chief counting officer will be ensuring that the counting officers and regional counting officers have exactly thought through some of these issues to ensure that they do not arise again, and of course they have the power to direct some of these things to be sorted out appropriately, a power that they did not have for the election.

To be fair, it is worth making the point that although the Electoral Commission was criticised to some extent this year, it was not responsible for delivering the elections in those individual cases. It delivers the guidance and it encourages returning officers to think about some of these issues, but in the areas where there was a problem it was largely the responsibility of the individual returning officer for not having planned properly or having had proper contingency arrangements in place. That is where the responsibility lies, and we need to ensure that that does not happen again.

[Ms Abbott]

The hour is late, but I wish to put on the record how concerned people in Hackney were by the debacle that we had at the polls earlier this year. The number of people who were turned away is an underestimate, because in my constituency hundreds of people came out after work to vote, saw the queues, went away, came back again, saw the queues and went away again, so we will never know how many people were put off voting. The cause of the queues was partly that people in Hackney were voting in three different ballots—that was one of the problems. Another cause was that the returning officer put a great deal of effort into encouraging people to cast their votes—my area had its highest ever turnout, particularly among young people who had never voted before. Another cause was the enthusiasm of people in Hackney to vote Labour.

I wish to stress that in a democracy the state has a very basic responsibility to allow people to cast their vote. These people did not come along at 9.50 pm; they had been queuing since 9 o’clock, but when 10 o’clock struck they were told that they could not cast their vote because they did not have a ballot paper in their hand. All I am saying is that this matter caused great concern in Hackney and it was very demoralising, particularly for people casting their vote for the first time. Voting is a fundamental right, and it is a fundamental duty of Government to allow people who want to vote, and who have come out in good time, to vote. We all saw last year’s American elections, where very long queues of young people wanted to vote for Barack Obama. A system was put in place that allowed people who were in a queue to vote; once the point where the queue was stopping had been marked, everybody in that queue was able to vote, even if that took hours. I do not see why we cannot have a similar system here in the United Kingdom.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has exposed the problem: we do not really know the extent of the difficulties that voters had in this year’s general election. We are all deeply moved to see people voting in South Africa; they queued not just for a couple of hours, but for days when they first had the opportunity to vote. We felt moved when we saw people in the United States of America queuing to vote and we are moved when we see people in Poland, or people in other parts of the world who have not always enjoyed democratic rights, queuing to vote. So it is a bit depressing when the view that other countries had of our election night was of people queuing and not being allowed to vote. That is the simple point that Labour Members are trying to rectify by way of this amendment.

I had presumed, because the Liberal Democrat leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, said that this was something that should never happen again in our democracy, that he was going to deal with the matter rather more swiftly. The referendum will coincide with other ballots, as my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington have said. The Minister wants these combined polls next May—I would prefer not to have them—and it is therefore all the more important that we have a specific provision to deal with this matter.

If the amendment does not contain the right wording, I would be quite happy for the Minister to come back on Report and provide us with an amendment to our amendment. That is the advantage of this process, in which we debate constitutional Bills on the Floor of the House like this. That might also speed up his officials. I offer him this possibility in comradely spirit. If he were to support the amendment so that it were carried, that would spur on his officials to provide an answer to the problem before we reach the Report stage. I will, therefore, press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.