Elections Bill

Geraint Davies Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I fear that that may be right. I know that my hon. Friend and others have experience, for example at council level, where they may have seen this happening at first hand. Today, I want to allow a Bill to make progress that will give confidence that a person’s vote is theirs alone, and that is vital. Did we not see that before when we introduced individual electoral registration? Voices were saying that it, too, would never work, but did we not see that it was about reducing the influence of the head of the household on who was allowed to register? That is an important point to remember.

The part of the Bill on postal and proxy voting includes new limits on the number of postal votes that may be handed in by any one individual, and a limit of four on the total number of electors for whom a person may act as a proxy. In order to tackle “vote harvesting”, the Bill is also making it an offence for political campaigners to handle postal votes issued to others, unless they are family members or carers of the voter.

Of course, stealing someone’s vote is not always done by personation or by taking someone’s ballot physically. As I mentioned, an equally sinister method that we have seen is people using intimidation, or pressuring people to cast their vote in a certain way or not to vote at all. That is known in the law as “undue influence”. The existing legislation on undue influence, which, again, originated in the 19th century, is difficult to interpret and enforce, so we are providing greater clarity, ensuring that there can be no doubt that it is an offence to intimidate, deceive, or cause harm to electors in order to influence their vote.

I have touched on the ways in which the Bill will combat the silencing of democratic voices by those seeking to influence or steal an individual’s vote, and I will now touch upon more ways in which the Bill will empower our citizens.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will be aware that loud claims of personation were made by the Trump campaign in the United States, which were completely without any basis or evidence, and which led to an assault on the Capitol building in Washington that suspended democracy itself. Does she think that as a Minister she should be promulgating an evidence-free claim that personation is a widespread problem that needs solving, with the cost being to deny millions of people their vote?

[Chloe Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman, as an experienced Member of this House, think he should be promulgating such nonsense? I do not think so.

One of the truest pillars of our democracy is the trust that we place in our citizens’ choices and the respect we give their decision. While we make voting in elections more secure, we also want to ensure that voters who may still require additional support to navigate that system, such as those with disabilities, have that support. This is why we are introducing key changes from our call for evidence on access to elections, extending the requirements on returning officers to support a wider range of voters with disabilities and extending the definition of who can act as a “companion” to anyone aged 18 or over.

In the same spirit, looking a little further afield, part 2 of the Bill will ensure that the voices of British citizens across the world can be heard, and their vote taken into account on matters that do affect them, by removing the 15-year limit on voting rights of British citizens living abroad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

This is where I differ from the hon. Gentleman. I think that the Government are trying to do their best. I do not think that this is a deliberate action, but I think that the pressure on the Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but listen: I lived through a Labour Government deliberately gerrymandering the system, frankly, so I do not want to take any lectures on that. I think that the Government are trying to do their best. They have the wrong idea in pursuit of a problem that does not exist, but they are nevertheless trying to do their best. But there is a greater—

[Geraint Davies]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is no evidence of gerrymandering. That is outrageous.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That is not a point of order. I really do not want the debate interrupted by points of order that are actually points of debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

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

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

[Geraint Davies]

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

[Brendan O’Hara]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assistance.

The matter was tested at the Court of Appeal in front of no less than the Lord Chief Justice, who ruled in summary that authorisation by the candidate or agent is a key feature of an election expense. The Electoral Commission—I make no comment as to its motivation—was dissatisfied with the outcome at the Court of Appeal and took the case to the Supreme Court, which ruled in an entirely contrary way, that spending could be construed as an election expense without receiving formal authorisation or proper deemed authorisation if it is of assistance to that candidate.

Two of the highest courts in the land—one said this and one said that. How on earth is a candidate or agent meant to make any sense of such legislation? I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for listening to my contributions in the House on this matter and for listening to the private Member’s Bill that I introduced some years ago to amend the 1983 Act appropriately so that proper authorisation has to be given. I now see those words in the Bill almost in their entirety. In clause 16, proposed new section 90C(1A) of the 1983 Act requires clear direction, authorisation or encouragement by the candidate or their agent for an election expense to be so. Thank God we have some clarity.

I would not want to see anybody in this House, friend or foe, go through what I went through. It was not fair, because we had ambiguous legislation. Finally we have a power in this Bill that means we will protect each other for the right reasons. Whether or not we like someone’s politics, it will apply to everybody.

[Geraint Davies]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying it is reasonable for a political party to bus in hundreds of workers and put them in hotels, so long as the agent does not know or authorise it? Is he saying that is a legitimate—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am afraid the time of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) has come to an end, but I will give him 30 seconds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies]

The Tower Hamlets investigation in 2012 found only three cases after 64 allegations, yet on the back of it the hon. Gentleman is making out that we should deny millions of people the right to vote. It is ridiculous.

[Mark Fletcher]

I am pretty sure that I dealt with the point about numbers in the first part of what I said. In regard to the idea that millions will be disfranchised, I think a number of 3.5 million was produced by the Electoral Commission. That is now five years out of date—forgive me if I am off by a year or two—and does not take into account the range of identification that can be used under the Bill, so in fact the number goes down substantially. Further to the point about the Bangladeshi community, 99% of ethnic minority people in this country have some form of identification that would allow them to vote under the Bill, so, again, I cannot quite understand why such a song and dance is being made.

Having trust in our electoral system is so vital to this country. All of us who are willing to stand up for those who have had their votes taken away stand in support of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As you may know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Aneurin Bevan famously said that in the struggle between property and poverty, as poverty grows, property will attack democracy. That is what we see today. We need to answer the question: cui bono? Who benefits? We know that 3 million people do not carry photo ID and that 40% will turn away from voting if they forget their ID, which people often do. Something like 30% of people do not vote in general elections anyway, and our focus should be to increase the franchise, not decrease it.

Poverty is spiralling upwards. Universal credit is going to be cut, and 7 million people in Britain are in hunger and poverty. We know that the plan is to tax jobs with national insurance, rather than a progressive tax. This Bill is designed to ensure that those who are hit hardest—the poorest—will find it more difficult to vote. I very much support evidence-based policy, but this is not evidence-based; it is looking for the evidence. To tighten up on personation, we could just get the police to do more checks within the existing law.

These provisions are part of a pattern of consolidating power and preventing democracy from turning the Government over to another political party. We have seen it in the banning of the right to peaceful protest; with the up and coming review of judicial power; with the boundary changes, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and even the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. All those things consolidate power and do not support the fundamental values that all parties should support: justice in the rule of law, democracy and human rights. We see the restriction on what charities and communities can say, while we allow overseas donors more influence in our politics. We see the Electoral Commission politicised. We saw the rhetoric of the Trump supporters, who said, “Stop the steal”, alleged personation and stormed the White House. We are supporting that sort of thinking, which is without basis.

This Bill is a missed opportunity. As has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and others, in Wales we are moving forward with democracy, including through 16-year-olds having the vote and proportional representation options in local government. Our focus should be to enhance, renew and embolden our democracy, our human rights and the rule of law, but I fear that this Bill is part of a pattern to diminish them, and that over time we will all regret this fundamental mistake.

International Aid: Treasury Update

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Programme motion
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

There is no economic or moral justification for cutting overseas aid from the richest to the poorest at this most desperate time in the eye of the pandemic storm, which spreads death, disease and hunger like a wildfire through developing nations. Let us imagine looking at our children starving in front of us, huddled in a tent in the blistering heat of Afghanistan, Yemen or Syria, as we think about the cars, houses, fridges and Netflix that people have in the west. Let us imagine looking at our daughters who could help create a better world with an education but will not get one, or our parents who have just died from covid. We can help alleviate such poverty, ignorance and disease by reinstating the aid budget. As host of the G7 and COP26, we should take moral leadership.

Let us be clear: we can afford to help those in greatest need more, not less because the cost of UK borrowing is down, not up, since the pandemic. Why? Global interest rates are down, so our borrowing costs are down—from £37 billion in 2019-20 to £23 billion in 2020-21. That is a saving of £14 billion in spending on debt interest for the UK, but aid spending is still being cut by £4.4 billion. The Prime Minister has just said that every pound we spend on aid has to be borrowed. We can afford more aid now because our borrowing and debt interest costs are massively down. Now is the time to invest and to build back better out of the pandemic in the developing world, and to invest in climate change adaptation, with new green industries that will help all our environments.

In a low interest world, now is the time to borrow and invest. A cut of £1 million in aid could be reinstated and service a debt of £100 million in investment. Only the G7 can borrow at such low interest rates; developing nations cannot. It is no use saying that we cannot afford it this year due to the pandemic and that maybe we will reinstate money in future years. We can afford it this year, and now is when the money is needed most. If savings were needed—and they are not—they should be made after the pandemic, when the poorest are back on their feet, not in their darkest hour of need.

We know the politics of popular nationalism. We know that 7.6 million people in the UK are in hunger, so of course people are saying that charity begins at home. But that hunger is unnecessary too and we should not give other G7 nations an excuse to cut their aid. We need more aid, not less. Britain is better than this. Let us make the world better. Let us reinstate our aid budget now.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Geraint Davies.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Diolch yn fawr, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Bill as it stands is frankly damaging to our armed forces, as it removes the protection of the law from many who have suffered injustice while serving our country, and it means war crimes may go unchallenged and that they might be dragged into the International Criminal Court.

As it stands, the Bill is bad for our international reputation and, indeed, for those who so gallantly protect our country because, unfortunately, it will stop people bringing legitimate cases of negligence, bullying and worse against the Ministry of Defence that are over six years old, while at the same time turning a blind eye to cases of war crimes and torture that are over five years old, all in the name of reducing the number of so-called vexatious cases.

In the case of Iraq, there have been 1,000 supposedly vexatious cases in the past 17 years. Of those, 330 have been settled—in other words, the Government have paid up and accepted liability. Some 414 remain ongoing—in other words, the Government have not applied for them to be struck out as being vexatious—and 217, only 217 out of 1,000, have been withdrawn or struck out. Many of them have been unmeritorious as opposed to vexatious, by which I mean they have been poorly pleaded or there have been errors of law. That is no surprise, because the Government have made savage cuts to legal aid. Many soldiers do not have law degrees and are traumatised by the experience about which they are bringing their case. There were about 10 unmeritorious cases in 17 years, which is fewer than the number of Government cases that have been rejected in court. Perhaps the Government should put their own house in order.

Let us also remember that, at the moment, the courts will not hear cases of historic facts unless they pass the test of being equitable—in other words, that fairness requires it—so we do not need the six-year limit. What is more, claimants face substantial costs to the Ministry of Defence in cases that are found to be unmeritorious, which is a clear deterrent.

We now have a situation in which the MOD can delay evidence in the name of national security and evade prosecution for negligence or worse. A constituent came to me who had been on an exercise with the military, and he had been hooded, stripped and tortured. He ended up with post-traumatic stress disorder, alcoholism and basically a lifetime of mental health problems, and we are still trying to get compensation. Clearly his case would be ruled out by the Bill.

There is the famous case of an Army cadet who was sexually abused by her instructor, and she did not bring it up until she was an adult. Again, the six-year rule would have meant that her case was not heard. There is the case of a Territorial Army officer who was subjected to racist abuse over many years, to which his superiors turned a blind eye. That case would not have been heard under the six-year limit. The cases go on.

I have no hesitation in supporting the Lords amendments on the duty of care, on the facility for cases to be reopened by the Director of Service Prosecutions when new evidence emerges, and on the facility for members of the armed forces to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence.

Finally and crucially, the Bill bans the prosecution of war crimes, including murder and torture, after five years, which is appalling, especially as it can take decades to investigate some of these crimes. We all know what happened after the second world war, for instance. The Government can sit on evidence for years. In a particular case in Britain, which involved the execution of unarmed civilians by British special forces, they sat on the evidence for more than a decade. We cannot justify a blanket pardon for war crimes and torture after five years of their happening, otherwise we will end up in the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

I very much support the amendments from the Lords that try to make the Bill a bit better. In essence, though, my view is that the Bill was not necessary and that it should have been completely scrapped, which is why I voted against it in the first place. None the less, I urge Members to vote for the Lords amendments today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Diolch yn fawr.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

The Chancellor failed to mention that, with 123,000 deaths, the UK has the highest coronavirus death rate in the world and the deepest recession of the G7. He also failed to mention the bungled Brexit that has led to a two-thirds cut in our exports since the new year. The Budget simply continues to increase inequality, which will itself reduce the rate of growth. Although it pumps money into the economy, it will mean council tax rises, pay freezes for public sector workers, benefit squeezes and service cuts, all of which will further increase inequality.

What we need is a healthier, fairer, greener future. We only have to look to the Welsh Government to see how to do that. In England, excess deaths associated with covid over the five-year average are at 20%, while in Wales, the figure is only 13%. If that rate had been applied in England, there would have been 36,000 fewer deaths. That could have been achieved through a more cautious approach to social distancing, travel limits, earlier lockdowns and, of course, contact tracing in public hands rather than in the hands of sponsors of the Conservative party. We are also rolling out vaccinations very quickly.

In Labour-run Wales, we have seen the Government using their money where it is most needed, not to support council tax relief for food superstores, which are making exceptional profits, and not for stamp duty for people buying second homes for their holidays. Instead, we have a £2 billion resilience fund, and the Development Bank of Wales investing in small businesses to secure 141,000 jobs. This is successful devolution, but we do need the tools to do the job, and we only get 2% of the money for rail investment for 5% of the population. We need a high-speed link between Bristol, Cardiff, Swansea and west Wales to help connect the Union. We need the shared prosperity fund to be spent in Wales, for Wales and by Wales. We need the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon that was promised, and we need electrification of the railways. There is much that we need, but we are not getting our fair share and we did not hear anything about that in the Budget.

We need a fairer future in Britain. There are 6.6 million people who are hungry and in food insecurity each day. We need to double the number of co-operatives. We need to target investment to smaller companies, particularly those that are committed to net zero, with local jobs that reduce inequality. We need to invest in children from poorer backgrounds who have lost out the most in terms of education, and we need to invest in sustainable transport. After all, 64,000 people a year are dying prematurely from toxic air. Again, there was nothing about that.

Labour increased the size of the economy by 40% in the 10 years to 2008 and in so doing doubled the health service and the education service. We need a Labour Government to have inclusive growth and to balance the books, and we will not get one until the next election.

Covid-19: Road Map

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman did not hear my answer to the previous question, so I will repeat it, because his question is identical to several previous questions. The answer is that we need time to evaluate the success or otherwise of each unlocking; we need four weeks to see what has happened. We must bear in mind that we are dealing with a disease that is extremely contagious and large numbers of people who are still unvaccinated and still very vulnerable, so we have to proceed with caution. That is why there is the five-week interval that we have. The second reason is that we want a timetable that we can stick to. People would really much rather have a sense of certainty and security—the maximum possible certainty and security—rather than any sense that this is fluid again and the date they have in their heads could change. That is very, very important. Certainty in this particular road map is of great value.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

In Wales, excess deaths over the five-year average are 13% more, compared with a figure of 20% more in England. So will the Prime Minister ensure that the UK Government website says, “If you live in more highly infectious areas of England, you should not travel to Wales”?

[The Prime Minister]

The restrictions throughout the country apply in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they will continue to apply for the duration of the pandemic.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. I thank Brighton and Hove City Council for co-operating with Eastbourne Borough Council in getting this done. There must be co-operation. No one in this country should be sleeping rough or homeless as a result of this pandemic or, indeed, through any other cause. We have invested £700 million this year to help people off the streets, and it continues to be a national priority. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for what he is doing and the various taskforces that are currently at work to prevent people from coming out on the streets again as we lift the restrictions.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

At the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea, there have been 526 cases of coronavirus since last September. The Prime Minister told us at Prime Minister’s Question Time:“All staff who can work from home are doing so”—[Official Report, 28 January 2021; Vol. 688, c. 374.]But in March last year, 250 people were working on site, and now the numbers are in their thousands, and they are facing a more infectious and widespread disease. Yesterday, 90 people were sent home following the latest outbreak of coronavirus just before the weekend. Given that BT is on standby to install home secure technology to allow homeworking, will the Prime Minister meet me and the Public and Commercial Services Union ahead of the strike ballot next week, so that workplace numbers can be reduced until the vaccine is rolled out, to keep people safe and avoid an unnecessary strike?

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Lowestoft is a hugely important port. All the ports in Suffolk and those that serve the North sea are ports in which we wish to invest, because, as he rightly points out, their potential, not just when it comes to increased access to our own fishing waters but new investment in renewables, is growing all the time. Our border strategy, which we published today, has been published in consultation with other Government Departments. He is absolutely right that we need to continue to work with them to take advantage of the opportunities of the future.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker. We will not be in the single market or the customs union, but the deal on the table offers free trade without tariffs, minimum environmental and worker protection, and sovereignty to diverge for selective adjudicated tariffs if, and only if, we undercut EU standards. Why then, on the last day of Parliament, is the Minister continuing to threaten UK business with no deal, plunging them into immediate tariffs for no divergence in just two weeks’ time?

[Michael Gove]

Bore da, Mr Speaker, and to the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that the UK Government have been clear about the importance of maintaining sovereignty, the right to diverge and full control over our waters. We shall not be ambiguous about that, but we are determined, if we can, to reach a free trade agreement. Our negotiators are working hard to that end.

Covid-19: Winter Plan

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I very much echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the sailors lost at sea. My hon. Friend is right to focus on the R. We want to get it down and keep it down, if possible for good.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Wales is already out of its successful circuit-breaker. When England comes out of lockdown into a tiered system, will the Prime Minister ensure that people who live in tiers 2 and 3 are not in a position to make non-essential travel out of those regions into other English regions or into Wales, in order to contain the spread of the transmission of the disease?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the guidance on travel in tiers 2 and 3, he will see that it sets out clearly that in tier 2 people should reduce the number of journeys that they make and avoid travelling into tier 3 areas, and that in tier 3 they should avoid travelling out of the area altogether. There is more detail in the guidance, which he might care to study.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on financial support for people in Wales affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

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

I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on our economic response to covid-19. We have directly provided over £500 million to the self-employed in Wales on top of the £5 billion additional funding guarantee given to the Welsh Government.

[Simon Hart]

As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been significant movement on the guarantee for the initial important works around Tylorstown. The rest of the funding that has been requested by the Welsh Government is the subject of a national reserve, and that has to be part of the normal estimates process. We have asked the Welsh Government to come forward with their numbers, and a decision on that will be made in due course. However, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already indicated that he will look favourably on an application provided it meets the necessary criteria.

[Geraint Davies [V]]

The lockdown in England of course came after the firebreak in Wales, so will the Secretary of State ensure that Wales gets its full equivalent of the England lockdown through the Barnett consequential formula, so that we get our fair share of funding that can be best deployed by the Welsh Government?

[Simon Hart]

The sums of money that have been already made available to the Welsh Government under the Barnett scheme are substantial. As the hon. Member knows, at least £5 billion has formed the major bulk of that. What I should also say is that, as far as the additional sums are concerned and the point he makes, the significance of doing this on a UK-wide basis is to minimise the complications and the divergences in policy between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, because that makes that even spread so much more difficult. However, the Chancellor has made available substantial sums of money in advance of the normal Barnett formula, and £1.8 billion is still being sat on by the Welsh Government and is available to spend.

Oral Answers to Questions

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

With excellent advocates such as my hon. Friend the south-west will always be heard and never left behind, and it is indeed crucial that we make the most of the opportunities that Exeter and Devon can provide for a bright economic future.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Now that the Lords have overwhelmingly opposed the UK Government breaking international law in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, as have the United States President-elect and the EU, will the Government now honour, not renege on the EU withdrawal agreement, in order that we can support our trade, underpin the Good Friday agreement, restore our reputation and bring sunshine in place of Frost to our negotiations?

[Michael Gove]

Whenever I see the hon. Gentleman, I am irresistibly reminded of the words of “Bring Me Sunshine”. I do not know whether he is Wise, but he is certainly one of the reasons the Conservatives represent Morecambe.