Elections Bill (Instruction)

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Instruction
Monday 20th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

I absolutely agree. 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 croupiers or whoever to have an ace hidden up their sleeve. Why should we accept that a party in power can get away with giving itself every conceivable unfair advantage to remain in power, including by changing the voting system on a whim? The Tories are undermining the electoral watchdog and introducing barriers to voting, particularly among folk who would see hell freeze over before they would vote Tory. Throughout our discussions of the Bill, we have been told, “It was in our manifesto—that’s why we’re obliged to do it.” It is remarkable that Government Members can ignore the absurdity of that argument, given the manifesto commitments we voted on earlier.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The voter ID pilots suggested that 0.16% of people who tried to vote were sent back to get identification, but in the London mayoral elections 5% of ballots were rejected because of confusion. Is that not the loss of franchise?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I share the confusion of the 5%, because I have absolutely no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Confused on what point—that they could not understand how to use proportional representation? Just because people cannot get it right the first time round does not mean that we should bin an entire system. Elections have to be fair and people have to trust the election system in place. This instruction is a retrograde step. It is about turning the clock back to an outdated, past-its-sell-by-date voting system.

As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) asked, where was this proposal when all the experts spoke to the Bill Committee? For four sessions over two days, countless experts came and talked to us about the Bill. The Government must have known that, like the dodgy croupier, they had this idea up their sleeve, waiting to come out; where was it? Why was it not presented before now? Why was the Bill Committee not allowed to investigate this topic and question experts on it? The Government had ample opportunity to float the idea but decided to wait until the Committee had started to sit and not allow a single opportunity for us to question expert witnesses on why it was appropriate. I would love to say I am shocked by this behaviour, but let us be honest, none of us are shocked by it. It has become par for the course.

Are Conservative Members really going to allow this to happen? Is a healthy, robust democracy really worth sacrificing on some vague promise of achieving short-term personal electoral gain? Are Conservative Members really going to meekly acquiesce and turn another blind eye to another full-on attack on our democracy? If they do, it will confirm what many of us on the Opposition Benches have suspected for quite some time: that in its deal with the devil, the Conservative party has given itself over completely to the UK Independence party and retained only the naming rights. Unfortunately, the rest of us will have to live with the consequences of that Faustian pact.

Dr Jess Garland, director of policy and research at the Electoral Reform Society, has said that this is a backward step, and she is of course correct. Is anyone surprised? Everything that this Government do is a backward step. It is like they are indulging in a desperate search for a better yesterday, to the extent that on the same day as they introduced this piece of ridiculous jiggery-pokery they announced that we would all be able to buy our spuds by the stone—assuming, that is, that we can find a supermarket with any tatties left. If it was not so dangerous, it would be laughable. This is opportunistic populism: give the punters what you have told them they want and you can pick their pockets and rob them of their democracy at the same time.

Let us be in no doubt that to resurrect a regressive and antiquated electoral system that belongs in the dustbin of history is nakedly and brazenly partisan. This motion to allow the Committee the powers to introduce first past the post has not been parachuted in because the Government think it will make democracy better or elections fairer, or be more representative—no chance. The only reason it is before us is because it will make it much easier for the Tories to win, while at the same time shutting out small parties on those few occasions when they can make an electoral impact.

Let us not pretend that this instruction to the Bill Committee is anything other than a tawdry attempt by this Government to ensure that, even if they fall out of favour with the public, the Tories will not fall out of power. When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he explains when it was decided that this provision would be put in the Bill. Who decided that? At what point and at what level was it decided, after the Committee had met and after the experts had been dismissed, that it was appropriate to parachute this in? How does he expect the Committee to be able to function under the circumstances in which it now finds itself when a colossally important piece of the Bill and an addition to the scope of the Bill has been introduced at this stage after the experts have gone?

Quite remarkably, this makes a thoroughly rotten Bill even worse—something that I never thought possible. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation of exactly how and why this was allowed to happen.

Planning System Reforms: Wild Belt Designation

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and well done to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) for securing this debate.

I have hardly any time, so let me cut to the chase. We have a huge challenge here, which is to stop biodiversity loss by 2030 and, in fact, to reverse it. We talk of nature and natural recovery, but what do we mean by that? Nature for the United Kingdom is truly an overwhelmingly forested land mass, whereas the rural landscape that we have come to know and love is, in fact, entirely man-made and a managed environment. We need a realistic solution. One such solution is a shared approach with improved agricultural practices—that is crucial, because only 6% of our land mass is developed and the rest of it is used for agriculture—plus rewilding of marginal land.

What is the bad boy here? It is farming practices post world war two, when, frankly, we broke the co-existence between nature and food production. That was encouraged by the common agricultural policy, whereby we had subsidies to remove hedges, subsidies to put subsoil drainage in our fields and huge subsidies to bring as much land as possible back into production. That was then followed up by agronomists who had been employed by agribusiness to pitch for the use of agrichemicals on the land in ever-increasing amounts, in the pursuit of yield above all else. The result has been a reduction in long-term rotations, the increasing use of expensive inputs, reduced profitability and therefore reduced margins, both in profit and loss terms and in terms of margins around fields. The result was reduced space for nature. As we have heard, that has led to a 97% reduction in our meadows and an 80% reduction in our chalk grasslands.

What should we do about that? The big answer is that we need to move our agriculture substantially towards regenerative principles and farming, but I do not have time to talk about that now. The second answer is to take marginal land out of production and use it for wildlife restoration.

A wild belt designation, with the consent and support of landowners, will help in the nature fightback. It could build on the concept of conservation covenants, which already exist, but bring that concept into the planning process. It would be a recognition of the new approach to natural recovery, bringing it within the planning system, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey so ably described. Together with ELMS and our new approach to agriculture, that could change mindsets and highlight that nature has a value in its own right.

Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

The hon. Lady makes a crucial point: each and every single one of these people, whether they were prosecuted or “just” suffered a shortfall, is a human being. I see the anger on social media and the tears in some of the interviews following the quashing of the convictions; we cannot fail to realise that these people have suffered so tragically and terribly over so long a period. The Government and I will absolutely treat everybody as individuals. This has come at human cost.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The group litigation of 2019 performed an enormous public service by bringing this miscarriage of justice to light, but although successful, those involved paid an enormous price for that public service, because most of their compensation was diverted away into legal fees, leaving just £15,000 per victim. That is grossly unfair. The Minister has referred a couple of times to the full and final settlement that has been reached for them, and it is true that that is the contractual position, but it is open to the Government to look behind the contractual position and actively compensate these people in full. Is that something that the Minister will consider?

[Paul Scully]

Before we look at wider compensation, I want first to understand and make sure that we can learn the lessons and find out exactly what happened and when. This happened over a 20-year period and we need to unwind those 20 years, but we want to do that as quickly as possible so that we can get a timely response and justice for those people, rather than waiting for the three, four or five years that a statutory inquiry might take.

Coronavirus: Supporting Businesses and Individuals

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]]

This motion feels like an attempt by the Opposition to grab some headlines in the run-up to the Budget on 3 March. They chuck in a raft of policy proposals to second-guess the Chancellor, and if they guess right, they can claim the credit. If they guess wrong, they can claim moral outrage. But what is interesting is not so much what is in the motion as what is not in it. Labour Members have been reduced to calling for an extension of existing schemes by a few months and for widening access to the self-employment scheme, although I note that they do not explain how we can do that without exposing the Treasury and the taxpayer to massive fraud. What they have been unable to do is to come up with any significant critique of the Government’s support for business and employment in response to the pandemic.

Why has Labour’s attack been reduced to carping around the edges? It is because the Government’s support for businesses and employment has been truly massive. They have used the hard-won financial credibility of the whole of the United Kingdom, which was painfully recovered after Labour’s last spendthrift Government, and used it to inject more than £280 billion of financial support right across our economy. They have been supporting jobs through the furlough scheme, with £46 billion; through the self-employment scheme, with £5.4 billion; and through the kickstart scheme, with £2 billion. They have been supporting businesses through the bounce back loan scheme, with £45 billion; through the CBILS, with £21 billion; through the large company loan scheme, with £5 billion; and through business rates relief and grants to companies that have been forced to close, with over £1 billion every month. The list could go on. There is barely a company in the whole of the United Kingdom that has not benefited in some way from the Government’s support, and as a former businessman myself, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Government have succeeded in keeping businesses afloat through the pandemic so that they will be in a position to bounce back as the lockdown eases. These are the businesses that will create the employment and generate the growth and then the tax revenues to pay back the enormous investment that the Government have made. Today’s employment figures show that businesses have already started to hire again, with employment having risen in each of the last two months and redundancy notices falling. With huge investment in the productivity-enhancing infrastructure of the whole United Kingdom still to come, and the implementation of the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan for a green recovery, there are huge grounds for optimism as we come out of lockdown, and I commend the Government for their herculean efforts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to support regeneration in towns.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

. What steps he is taking to support regeneration in towns.

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)]

We are witnessing a profound reshaping of our towns and high streets as covid-19 continues to have a very significant impact on our communities. Our towns fund is investing £3.6 billion in an initial 100 towns, which will help to renew town centres and high streets across the country. In September, all 101 towns received their share of over £80 million to help deliver immediate improvements, and I was pleased to announce the first seven comprehensive town deals last month, with further deals and the results of the future high streets competition being announced very shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

I certainly can. We have taken a number of steps throughout the pandemic to help small businesses, particularly in retail and hospitality, so that when, as we hope and expect, the national measures are eased on 2 December, it will be easier for those businesses to move forward. I was pleased last week to announce that I am extending the right that allows pubs, restaurants and cafés to provide takeaway services until March 2022. I have also extended the option for local authorities, such as the council in Bolton, to host outdoor markets and events, and for businesses such as pubs to use their land temporarily without planning permission, for example for marquees in pub gardens.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Given that the likely response to covid will mean that office space is needed much less in the future, and that that is likely to be a long-term trend, does my right hon. Friend agree that that should have a profound impact on the algorithmic distribution of housing numbers anticipated by the planning White Paper?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are seeing the most substantial change to our city centres and town centres since the second world war, and that does give us pause for reflection. We now need to consider what the opportunities will be for the repurposing of offices as residential and for turning retail into mixed use, and that will, I think, lead us to a different approach to distributing housing numbers across the country. The consultation that he refers to has closed; we are considering the responses, and I will make a statement on that in the weeks ahead.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th September 2020 Commons Chamber

So which is it? Playing fast and loose with the future of Northern Ireland by threatening to undermine a deal Ministers themselves have said was agreed to secure the Good Friday agreement is not only bad politics from the Government; it is dangerous. I ask the Government to bear that in mind and to start looking for serious, long-term solutions that protect the hard-won peace for generations to come.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Clause 46 has been the subject of much heated debate in this Chamber, yet when I read it, it seems innocuous enough. It provides power for a Minister of the Crown to provide financial assistance to promote lots of good things—economic development, infrastructure, cultural activities and sport—yet this has caused such seeming offence to the nationalists in Scotland that they have tabled amendment 18 to do away with the power in its entirety.

The SNP talks of a power grab, and yet it is an incontrovertible fact that not a single power held in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast is being removed. In fact, the opposite is taking place—more than 70 powers currently held in Brussels are being devolved, which the SNP would like to give back to the EU. It is true that not every power currently held in Brussels is passing to the devolved Administrations. The reason is that the Government are properly applying the constitutional devolution settlement between the four nations, and quite right too.

I have heard the Scottish nationalists assert that clause 46 goes against the principles of devolution, but the opposite is true. Devolution in Scotland was devised by the late right hon. Member for Glasgow Anniesland. As the father of devolution, Donald Dewar set out his vision in the 1997 White Paper “Scotland’s Parliament”, which said:

“Westminster will continue to be responsible for those areas of policy best run on a United Kingdom basis.”

It goes on:

“By preserving the integrity of the United Kingdom, the Union secures for its people participation in an economic unit, which benefits business, provides access to wider markets and investment and increases prosperity to all.”

That is the vision that Scots backed in 1997, and it is exactly the approach that the Government are following in clause 46.

To be clear, this is not money repatriated from the EU, nor is it money taken from the devolved Assemblies. This is money granted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to be spent across the United Kingdom. This is money that is needed throughout our country. The response to covid-19 is the most recent example of why we all benefit from this power residing at UK level and as the devolution settlements require.

To cushion the profound economic shock of the virus, the UK Government put in place a truly monumental system of business and employment support, in addition to their spending allocations to the four nations. In Scotland alone, nearly 800,000 jobs—almost a third of the entire workforce—were protected by the furlough scheme and the self-employment income support schemes. In addition, a minimum £12.7 billion has been provided, including £6.5 billion to Scotland, on top of the spring Budget—a 25% increase on pre-virus spending levels.

How do we have access to that money? It does not come from our financial reserves as a nation. Sadly, it comes from the UK Government’s ability to raise debt at very low interest rates because the markets have faith in the financial strength of this United Kingdom. It is the strength created by a unity of 68 million people with the financial firepower of the City of London and Charlotte Square combined. To pretend otherwise would be to perpetrate a fraud on the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

There are arguments for independence, but to remove the powers of the UK Government to provide ongoing financial assistance to every part of the United Kingdom would be a huge disservice to the people of Scotland. And for what reason? To promote a nationalist agenda, even at the cost of support for the people of Scotland.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster described the breaching of international law as a “safety net”. That breaching of international law is set out clearly as being such in article 5 of the withdrawal agreement that this Government signed up to, put to the British people and passed in legislation. There is no shadow of a doubt that even bringing this legislation to the House means breaching international law, with all the consequences that flow from that.

To call this a safety net is entirely wrong. It is anything but that. There is nothing safe in the breach of international law whatsoever, as the Minister well knows. The breach of international law invites retaliation under the terms of the World Trade Organisation. It invites us being regarded as a pariah. It invites others to say that we are in no position to criticise those who routinely break international law. It undermines this country’s fine reputation, as set out by Margaret Thatcher—revered by all Conservative Members—who said that Britain is nothing if not a country that sets an example to other countries. It undermines the promised negotiations for deals around the world, including the fundamental negotiation right now with the European Union. We were promised by this Government—by their Prime Minister—that 80% of our trade would be covered by international trade agreements after Brexit had been concluded. What is the figure now? It is 8%—that is all they have managed, not the 80% they promised. The safety net has a great big hole in it; it is nothing of the kind. What of the Prime Minister, who described it as a safety net as well—as a means of preventing this fanciful blockade of Great Britain to Northern Ireland trade? If that were true, why is there nothing in the Bill that deals with this alleged shortcoming?

No safety net is needed, either, because the dispute resolution mechanisms set out in the withdrawal agreement and in the Northern Ireland protocol provide everything that we could possibly need. If those protections are followed step by step, we stay within international law, so why are the Government so keen to go beyond that? The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) set out what is already provided—I remember; I was here—when he stood at the Dispatch Box and described the process as providing a clear and lawful set of responses, and he was right to do so.

We should not be going down this road. The agreement was signed, it was promised to the British people, and the Prime Minister told us that it was in perfect conformity with the Northern Ireland protocol. This Bill is not needed in its current form. The Government should take out the illegal actions that they are proposing and they should be honest with the British people.

Horizon: Sub-Postmaster Convictions

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Scully]

I agree that so many people have suffered. Indeed, some people have taken their lives, as well as losing their livelihoods; that is not to be forgotten. I was pleased that a settlement was reached by both sides of this agreement and, as I say, sub-postmasters caught within shortfalls in the past who were not part of that agreement are able to claim under the historical shortfall scheme.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

One of the great frustrations to date has been the refusal of the former senior management of the Post Office to answer detailed questions on this issue and to be held to account. That is the least that is owed to those who have been wrongly convicted, including my constituent Siobhan Sayer. Will my hon. Friend confirm that individual culpability of senior management figures within the Post Office will be part of this review?

[Paul Scully]

I totally empathise with the suffering of my hon. Friend’s constituent, Siobhan Sayer. The chairman, who is independent of the Post Office, and the Government need to look at exactly what went wrong, which will by necessity mean looking at who took what decisions when. It will be complicated, because this happened over a period of 20 years, but none the less, they must get to the bottom of it.

Horizon Settlement: Future Governance of Post Office Ltd

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Scandals come and scandals go, and both as a former barrister and as a new Member of this House, it is all too easy when we see a raft of paperwork coming across our desks to scan through the details and forget that each of these scandals is made up of individual cases—individual human stories—so I beg the indulgence of the House and ask to reprise the story of Siobhan Sayer, a constituent of mine who 14 years ago was a sub-postmistress and had trouble balancing accounts. She did not hide this issue; she highlighted it and asked for help—indeed, she asked for help from the Post Office. Eventually, that help came, in the form of three auditors. They did not assist her in balancing the books. Instead, they suspended her, they accused her of theft, they searched her house, asking her where she had hidden the money, and then they interrogated her to such an extent that it stopped only when she physically collapsed. But it did not end there: they took the further step of prosecuting her, both for theft and for false accounting.

That young lady was pressurised to plead guilty to the lesser charge of false accounting in order to avoid a prison sentence for theft. As a former barrister, I can understand why, in the face of the seemingly impenetrable evidence of a robust system in the form of Horizon, that advice might have been given. Having pleaded guilty, she was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, and 200 hours of community service. That is terrible. That is a true scandal. But it is worse than that, because she was shamed in her community, she was ostracised by her friends, and her mental and emotional health was hit to such an extent that she was unable to leave her home for two years. That is the consequence of the actions and inactions of the Post Office and its servant, Fujitsu.

Why did that happen? Undoubtedly, it happened because the Post Office did not care to believe in the honesty of its own staff. It refused to believe that the system could be wrong, despite its own evidence mounting up to the contrary.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is remarkable that there is a minute showing that the Post Office board knew in 1999 that the system had its faults?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is absolutely inexplicable, and it lasted right up to the evidence heard last year by Mr Justice Fraser. As was mentioned, he said that the Post Office acted rather like the flat earth society, refusing to believe even its own facts. But there is a strong suspicion that it went further than a refusal to believe; there was actually a question of dishonesty, particularly in the evidence given by Fujitsu. The learned judge expressed serious concerns about the veracity of that evidence and took the very unusual step of referring it to the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider whether criminal prosecutions should follow.

This matter was discovered only by the brave and tenacious actions of the victims themselves over a 10-year period, faced with unending delaying and cost-increasing tactics by the Post Office.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are at the heart of many local communities and not only have the respect of those communities but deserve the respect of the Post Office and people in authority? This whole sorry saga shows a complete and utter lack of respect and trust. It is deeply disappointing and, as he suggests, it is deeply wrong.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I entirely agree. It was the very fact that postmistresses and postmasters are at the heart of the community that made the devastation of their reputations all the worse when they were unjustly accused by their employer of dishonesty and theft.

I conclude by imploring the Government not to hide behind the corporate veil. Albeit at arm’s length, the Post Office is a part of the Government—it is part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It was referred to earlier as an example of unaccountable power, and I fully endorse that statement. It is part of a wider problem with the lack of accountability in quangos throughout our society. That leaves open only one sensible solution: a judge-led inquiry that has the power to investigate who knew what and when, and to give justice to these people and award real compensation.

Local Government Responsibilities: Public Services

Jerome Mayhew Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

These are unprecedented times. One thing that comes through quite clearly for me is community spirit. It was illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), and will be the thread that runs through my remarks, and probably through everybody else’s remarks as well.

I must draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I am a councillor. I say that these are unprecedented times, but in local government we have had unprecedented times for quite some time. I remember back in the late noughties, we had the Barnet Council graph of doom. I do not know whether any fellow local government finance aficionados remember this, but it is the point at which the cost of adult social care rises and the amount of central Government grant goes down—it is the point on the graph at which those two things intercept. We are well past that now, so local government is used to reacting to changing financial circumstances and filling that gap with either locally raised revenue through taxation or locally raised revenue through commercial ventures.

The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) mentioned the powers used by local government in Luton relating to commercial activities around the airport —[Interruption.] They have an airport, what can I say? The point here, of course, is that there are many ways of skinning a cat, and local government has had to face adverse circumstances in the past, and I am sure that our friends in local government will rise to this challenge as it stands today.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Is it not the case that this is the kind of situation where it is not just about local government? This is one of those rare occasions—the first time in my lifetime—where it is not sufficient for the community to dial 999 and leave it to local government or the emergency services. We, the people, will be on the frontline, directed and co-ordinated by district councils, or county councils, as in my constituency of Broadland. It is our opportunity to stand up and be counted to protect those who have to be shielded—the most vulnerable in our society including the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions—and that is both a wonderful opportunity for us to demonstrate our cohesiveness as a society and also our fundamental duty to look after those less fortunate than ourselves.

[Ben Everitt]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The job of local government is on the frontline. Any job of a public servant such as ourselves, or councillors or council officers, is to look after the most vulnerable in society. If we do not do that, we are not a society.

Speaking of the most vulnerable, in Milton Keynes, we have a persistent problem of homelessness, which possibly provides one of the best examples of partnerships between local government and the voluntary sector. I have been very fortunate to visit many charities in Milton Keynes since being elected to represent Milton Keynes North. We have a winter night shelter, the YMCA, the Salvation Army and, of course, the Bus Shelter, which is run by volunteers, with a full-time on-site manager. It takes street homeless people off the streets. They get a bed for the night in Robbie Williams’ old tour bus, which seats, I think, 18, but it normally holds eight clients. It was wonderful to meet the clients, to see how they access the service and how the service helps them get their lives back on track and into work. Milton Keynes has received over £2 million of central Government funding for homelessness and rough sleeping since Christmas, which is incredibly welcome, because this is a critical time to support those who are on the street. That is a good example of how the voluntary sector, charity sector and local government can come together to solve a problem.