Civil Service Appointments

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Like my right hon. Friend, I, too, want to pay tribute again to Sir Mark. Having served in Cabinet when she was Prime Minister and Sir Mark was Cabinet Secretary, I appreciate just how much we all owe to him for his distinguished public service. I should also say that we have had previous National Security Advisers, all of them excellent, not all of whom were necessarily people who were steeped in the security world; some of them were distinguished diplomats in their own right. David Frost is a distinguished diplomat in his own right and it is entirely appropriate that the Prime Minister of the day should choose an adviser appropriate to the needs of the hour.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]]

Of course, Sir Mark Sedwill should be thanked for his distinguished service, but the truth is that his card was marked last year when he warned the Cabinet that Brexit would be a disaster. He also said that the consequent recession could be worse than 2008 and that prices could go up by 10%. This is all about the revenge of the Vote Leave campaign, whose so-called mastermind is now pulling the strings of this Government—although one does have to wonder about the masterliness of a mind that thinks a good way to test one’s eyesight is to go for a 60-mile drive.

I have three questions for the Minister. First, will he confirm that this is the start of the hard rain that Dominic Cummings promised for the civil service? Secondly, it has long been thought desirable for the Government to have the assistance of a civil service that is neutral, objective, above party politics and free from the taint of apparent bias. Does the Minister think there is any merit left in those qualities? Thirdly and finally, Lord Ricketts, himself a former National Security Adviser, has queried whether Mr Frost, a former diplomat, has the necessary experience of the wider security and defence agenda to fulfil the role of National Security Adviser. Will the Minister detail for us what experience Mr Frost has in those fields? Or should we be left with the impression that, even when it comes to national security, it is more important to have yes men in post than people with the requisite experience?

[Michael Gove]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her questions. The objectivity, neutrality and authority of our civil service is a source of pride to this Government, as it has been to previous Governments. I have been fortunate, in a variety of Departments, to work with civil servants of the highest standard, to whom I owe so much. I had the opportunity on Saturday, in the speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) referred to, to thank them for saving me from mistakes that I might have made and for ensuring that policies that this Government have developed were delivered effectively.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) asks about previous National Security Advisers and their range of expertise. It is true that Sir Peter, now Lord Ricketts, was chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and permanent representative to NATO, but it is also the case that other previous National Security Advisers, including Mark Lyall Grant and Kim Darroch, were distinguished diplomats, without necessarily being steeped entirely in the world of security and intelligence. It is appropriate that the Prime Minister’s adviser on national security should be someone with diplomatic expertise. It is also the case, of course, that David Frost, in the negotiations that he is conducting with the European Union at the moment, is tackling and dealing with delicate questions of national security and defence co-operation as well.

Global Britain

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend very much. He is entirely right. The Commonwealth is a massive and powerful force for good: 53 nations united with a shared tradition and a shared ambition to encourage free trade around the world. We will develop that and many other important causes, which we will address at the Kigali summit when we can hold it next year.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]]

Many of my constituents care passionately about fair trade, because it has the potential to lift millions of people across the world out of poverty. Will the Prime Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that the plans he has announced today will not result in any diminution of the UK Government’s previous commitment to support fair trade across the world, from Palestine to the Ivory Coast?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course.

EU-UK Partnership: EU’s Mandate

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I am looking forward to addressing precisely that point. I do understand why the Minister is so keen to talk about the process. It is because he does not really want to address the substance of the negotiations. Let me just say a further word on the consultation with the devolved Administrations, because that may be his perspective, but it is certainly not the perspective of the devolved Administrations themselves who feel that the engagement has been cursory, and has not been meaningful either around the negotiating mandate or in updating them on the progress.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my colleague, the Brexit Minister in the Scottish Parliament, Mike Russell, that the whole process of involvement with the devolved Administrations has been merely about letting them know what is happening rather than letting them influence what is happening in the negotiations or having any input in decisions on any crucial issues?

[Paul Blomfield]

I do indeed, and that is a concern that has, I think, been widely expressed by others as well. Indeed, it reflects the Government’s approach to this Parliament. They keep us a little bit informed, with a written ministerial statement here and there, but there is no meaningful engagement.

Parliament must be given the opportunity of holding the Government to account for the pledges they made to the British people in the election to which the Minister referred. At that election, the Conservative manifesto promised an “oven-ready deal”. That deal was the new withdrawal agreement and political declaration that the Prime Minister triumphantly renegotiated in October 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). We disagree about much, but we are both committed to the restoration of sovereignty. He is committed to the restoration of the sovereignty of this Parliament, whereas I am committed to restoring the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, which of course was famously asserted in the declaration of Arbroath, whose 700th anniversary we are celebrating this year. In the June 2016 referendum, people in Scotland voted overwhelmingly to be part of the EU.

That preference has been reinforced in Scotland in two subsequent United Kingdom general elections and in the European Parliament election, yet on 31 January this year, people living in Scotland found themselves being taken out of the European Union against their expressed wishes. At that time it was said that this was, “Getting Brexit done”, but of course Brexit is not done. All that has been agreed are the terms of withdrawal. Nothing has been agreed regarding the future relationship between the UK and the EU. Judging from what I see and hear in my role as a member of the Select Committee on the Future Relationship with the EU, there is very little chance of an agreement being reached by the end of this year.

The Scottish National party thinks that it is not and will not be possible to conduct and conclude the negotiations and implement the results within the truncated timescale that has been set. We also think that in the context of an unprecedented global pandemic and a catastrophic economic recession, which might turn out to be the worst in 300 years, it is frankly irresponsible to think that things can be done properly within that timeframe.

That view is widely held by those who have the misfortune to watch and comment upon the British Government’s conduct of the negotiations, which includes the ill-judged and rather petulant letter sent by Mr Frost to Mr Barnier last month. That is widely seen as having been something of a nadir in the British Government’s approach to the negotiations.

[Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I will make a little bit of progress, and then I will give way. It is the view of the Scottish Parliament that it is essential that the UK indicates that it will seek to extend the transition period for up to two years, as provided for in the withdrawal agreement. It is not just the SNP who think that, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said. All the parties in the Scottish Parliament, including the SNP, Labour, the Greens and the Lib Dems—all that is, apart from the Scottish Conservatives—believe that there should be an extension. The deadline that is coming fast at us at the end of this month is a very real deadline, because after the end of this month it will not be possible to extend under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and no other plausible route to an extension has been put forward.

[Andrew Griffith]

Will the hon. and learned Lady care to recall her party’s policy in respect of the withdrawal agreement and its prognosis for the triumphant renegotiation of that? Does she recall how few weeks it took the Government to obtain that renegotiation with the services of David Frost?

[Joanna Cherry]

I am not sure I follow that intervention. I am not going to be pulled off my track by it, because I do not want to take up too much time.

The global economy is declining fast and we must do everything we can to give business the best support for recovery from that decline. The next couple of years will be crucial. Ending the European Union withdrawal transition period at the end of this year would subject Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole to an entirely unnecessary second economic and social shock on top of the covid crisis. More jobs would be lost, living standards would be hit and essential markets and opportunities for recovery would be damaged. For the many businesses that manage to survive the covid crisis, this second, Brexit-related shock could be the final straw.

Yesterday, the Scottish Government published a report indicating that ending the transition this year would result in Scottish gross domestic product being between £1.1 billion and £1.8 billion lower by 2022 than if the transition was extended to the end of 2022. That is equivalent to a cumulative loss of economic activity of between £2 billion and £3 billion over those two years. A proportionate impact would be likely for the UK economy, so it is against the background of those figures and projections for the Scottish economy and the UK economy that the vast majority of Scotland’s elected representatives would like to see an extension of the transition period.

I do not expect the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to take what Scotland’s elected representatives vote for remotely seriously. I know that whether he is affecting a courtesy and a concern for our voices, or whether he is putting the boot into us for the benefit of his Back Benchers, Scotland is not his concern, because Scotland returns very few Conservative Members to this Parliament. However, the economic impact of failing to extend the transition will affect not just Scotland, but all the United Kingdom, including those who, in good faith—particularly in the red wall—voted for the Conservative party in England last December. Even if the Government give not a jot for the concerns of Scottish voters and the vast majority of their elected representatives, I am sure that they do give a jot for the concerns of the people who put them where they are. Many of those people, particularly working-class voters in the north and midlands of England, will be most adversely affected by the sort of double whammy of leaving at the end of this year without an agreement or an extension and the covid crisis.

[Jacob Young]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I am coming to an end. I say to the Chancellor that he should swallow his pride and seek an extension of the transition period. For all that has been said about him in this place, Michel Barnier has all the graciousness that the Chancellor affects to have, so I have no doubt that if the request for an extension is made, it will be granted.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Ministerial Code

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend speaks for many in the country. The Home Secretary is doing a superb job. The new points-based immigration system is in line with what this country wants, and we want to make sure that this process is expedited in a fair way.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The circumstances surrounding the resignation at the weekend were unprecedented, although the Government seem to thrive on unprecedented circumstances. It seems that the Home Secretary may be trying to create a hostile environment inside the Home Office, as well as outside it. We in the House are all managers of staff, and every Member understands the rewards and challenges that brings. There is a world of difference between robust management and bullying, however, and only an independent investigation can establish which of the two has gone on. That is what the FDA union has called for, so why will the Government not agree to an independent investigation? What are they afraid of?

On the whereabouts of the Prime Minister, we know that in the past he was so afraid of the scrutiny of the House that he tried—unlawfully—to shut it down. Is he still afraid of the scrutiny of the House of Commons, or is he in hiding because we are about to lose another Cabinet Minister from one of the great offices of state?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her question, and she knows that I have enormous respect and affection for the work she does. She is right to say that, as we are all managers of staff and public servants, we must be properly robust and exacting in ensuring that we do everything we can to deliver for those who put us here. All my ministerial colleagues know that their first responsibility is to the British people, and to delivering the manifesto on which we were elected.

The hon and learned Lady rightly said that it is important that any investigation is thorough, rapid, independent, and authoritative. The Cabinet Secretary will be leading the work in accordance with the ministerial code, and with access to the independent adviser, Sir Alex Allan, and that will ensure a proper and fair inquiry. On the presence of the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister is determined to ensure that across Government we fulfil our manifesto pledges, and it is right for him to lead that work. As the Minister responsible for the civil service, it is appropriate that I am here answering these questions.

Lobby and Media Briefings: Journalists' Access

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

The press certainly should be able to report without fear. We are strongly in support of there being a free press. Let me point to another example, which is that of the Cairncross review. The Government are pressing forward with ways to support our media to adapt to the digital age, and that is in addition to what I have been saying about the way the Government are ensuring that lobby briefings are available.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Minister on the Orwellian double-speak of her opening remarks. I am sure she will go far in this Government.

Those of us who support independent press regulation have, over the years, received a number of lectures on press freedom from those on the Government Benches, so it ill behoves the Minister to dodge our reasonable questions today. She has mentioned how important the Union is to her. I spoke to members of the Scottish lobby about this issue this morning and it is well established that the Scottish media outlets were excluded from the briefing yesterday. Will the Minister clarify a very simple question—was that an oversight or was it deliberate?

[Chloe Smith]

I have already explained that this particular briefing was arranged to provide further specialist briefing. It was not in itself a matter for the kind of questioning that the hon. and learned Lady is putting about around whether it should be for Scotland or the United Kingdom. That question is rightly subject to a far greater debate on which, I gently point out, she is on the wrong side. The point is that the British people have asked for a clear resolution of our relationship with the European Union. We got Brexit done last weekend and we now move on to the next stage of the negotiation. We all want the lobby to be able to benefit from a good understanding of the negotiating objectives of the UK Government. The UK Government speak for all parts of the UK in that, so such matters are not really the subject of the kind of questioning the hon. and learned Lady is asking after.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution
Friday 20th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No, I will not give way. This will be with no alignment on EU rules, but instead with control of our own laws, and close and friendly relations. This vision of the United Kingdom’s independence, a vision that inspires so many, is now, if this new Parliament allows, only hours from our grasp. The oven is on. It is set at gas mark 4; we can have this done by lunchtime—or a late lunchtime. The new deal that I negotiated with our European friends will restore our great institutions to their rightful place as the supreme instruments of British self-governance. Once again, this House will be the only assembly able to legislate for this United Kingdom, and British courts will be the sole arbiters of those laws, and above them all will be the sovereign British people, masters of their own fate, controlling their own borders, laws, money and trade.

Throughout our new immigration system, we will not only welcome those with talent, but go out of our way to attract people of ability, regardless of nationality or background. We are able to do this only because the freedoms offered by leaving the EU allow us, once again, to control overall numbers and bear down on unskilled immigration with our new points-based system.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Will the Prime Minister give way?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. and learned Lady is against control of immigration, I would like to hear her explain why.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Prime Minister has spoken about welcoming people to these islands. Clause 37 of his Bill removes the Government’s existing obligations with regard to unaccompanied children seeking asylum in the European Union who want to join their family members in the United Kingdom. Lord Dubs has described this removal of a right as “mean-spirited and nasty”. Can the Prime Minister tell me why he is making this mean-spirited and nasty move?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid that the hon. and learned Lady has totally misunderstood, or possibly misrepresented, the purpose of what we are doing here. We remain proud of our work in receiving unaccompanied children. We will continue to support fully the purpose and spirit of the Dubs amendment, but this is not the place—in this Bill—to do so. The Government remain absolutely committed to doing so.

Among the many other advantages of this deal is, of course, the fact that we will be able to sign free trade deals with the booming markets of the world, a power that no British government have enjoyed for the past 46 years. We will cast off the common agricultural policy, which has too often frustrated and overburdened our farmers. We will release our fishermen from the tangled driftnets of arcane quota systems.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is my pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who made a very careful and considered speech in response to these matters. It is good to know that the days of establishment cover-ups in the immediate aftermath of tragedies—such as we saw over Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday—are over. Although I find much to disagree with the right hon. Lady about, I know that she has been pivotal in ensuring that there was an inquiry in this case, and that her actions were also pivotal in relation to Hillsborough. That is something about which we can agree.

I welcome the publication of phase 1 of the reports, but I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that this was an avoidable tragedy, and I will come back to that in a moment.

Before I say anything else, I want, like others, to pay tribute to the resilience of the survivors of this tragedy and the bereaved. Like many other hon. Members, I had the privilege, thanks to you, Mr Speaker, of meeting some of the survivors and bereaved at a reception in your offices. That was of great use to me in understanding their lived experience of this avoidable tragedy, which must be central to how we deal with preventing this sort of thing and ensuring that it never happens again.

As well as paying tribute to the fortitude and dignity of the families—the bereaved—and the survivors, I want, like others, to pay tribute to the bravery of individual firefighters. For most of us, it is really unfathomable that they had the courage to run back and forth in and out of that inferno. I believe that the bereaved families have had very warm words for the coroner, Fiona Wilcox, and tribute should be paid to her, as well as to Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his staff. Of course, tributes should also be paid, as others have said, to the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), who had to deal with this terrible tragedy on her patch very shortly after she had been elected a Member of Parliament, and has been able to do so, again with great fortitude and resilience, because she knew the area so well.

It is important to remember that this is only phase 1 of the inquiry. Many have argued that perhaps the inquiry was the wrong way round and that phase 1 should have looked at the cause of the fire and phase 2 at the response. There is some force in that, but we are where we are. It is very important to look to the statement that the Fire Brigades Union made, pointing out:

“Before any firefighter arrived that night, Grenfell Tower was”

already

“a death trap. Firefighters…acted bravely in impossible circumstances, many of them repeatedly risking their own lives to save others.”

Indeed, that is reflected in the report. The Fire Brigades Union goes on to say:

“The true culprits of the fire are those who wrapped the building in flammable cladding.”

It is good that the inquiry has recognised that, and I am sure that phase 2 will spend a lot more time looking at it. Also contributing to this avoidable tragedy were those who gutted the fire safety regime of the United Kingdom, who ignored the warnings from previous fires, and who did not hear the pleas of a community who were worried for their safety.

I cannot help thinking that the story of the avoidable tragedy of Grenfell is a modern tale of two cities. Do we really think that this carnage would have been allowed to happen if the residents of the tower were white, wealthy, middle and upper-class residents such as we find elsewhere in Kensington? Do we really think that the survivors and the bereaved would have waited so long for state support and rehousing if they had been white, wealthy and middle-class? Of course not. This divided city, and our divided society, have developed under the watch of the Conservative party. As others have pointed out, the Prime Minister was Mayor of this great city of London at the time when cuts were made to the fire brigade. There are issues of political responsibility that are properly the province of this House.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Some outside—I am not saying that the hon. and learned Lady is doing this—have said that the fire brigade differentiated its response because of the ethnicity of the people in the building. That is complete and utter nonsense, as I am sure she will agree. On her point about the social class of the people in the in the building, a number of colleagues have referred to the privately owned freehold buildings across the country that are not getting reclad. They are all private blocks that are owned by leaseholders. The social blocks have all been done—perhaps a little slower, but they have all been done. These people are mostly white middle-class, and they are in desperate need of their cladding being taken down and replaced.

[Joanna Cherry]

I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s second point, and I also agree with his first point. However, the point that I sought to make was that it has not gone unnoticed by many of us that the social class and ethnicity of the people who died in Grenfell Tower was very different from that of other people who live in the surrounding area, and there is a very strong suspicion that that has led to some of the shortcomings in this case.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

No, I am going to make some progress.

When this House reassembles after general election 2019, we must not allow political blame for this avoidable tragedy to be deflected. The second phase of this inquiry, I believe, will be uncomfortable for Conservative Ministers and Conservative councillors who sat on their hands or took actions that let circumstances occur that contributed to this tragedy. I believe that phase 2 will be far more uncomfortable for them than phase 1 has been for the fire service—and that is as it should be.

I welcome the undertaking from the Prime Minister to implement all the recommendations for central Government, but I reiterate the question that other hon. Members have asked: will he commit to the requisite funding to implement those recommendations? In the past, many post-death inquiries have made very important recommendations, but there is not always national oversight of those recommendations. There is not a national body keeping track of whether they have been implemented, and the reality is that important recommendations often fall by the wayside.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. and learned Lady is making a very important point. Does she think that as soon as the Government, whichever Government it is, have had a chance to consider the recommendations in detail, they should publish a list of those recommendations, what they are going to do to implement them, how much that will cost, and the timeframe in which they will be delivered?

[Joanna Cherry]

That is an eminently sensible suggestion.

Others have mentioned Lakanal House. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) pointed out that the tragedy at Grenfell was not the first time that compartmentation had failed. The Lakanal House fire, which resulted in the deaths of six people, with 15 residents and a firefighter injured, was the subject of a coroner’s inquest. As the hon. Gentleman said, the coroner sent a rule 43 letter to the then Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, on 28 March 2013, recommending that the Westminster Government should

“publish consolidated national guidance in relation to the ‘stay put’ principle and its interaction with the ‘get out and stay out’ policy, including how such guidance is disseminated to residents.”

Ministers promised to review that guidance with the Local Government Association. However, in the four years after the coroner’s letter, no guidance was produced. So the lessons that should have been learned from the Lakanal House fire, and that might have prevented at least the scale of this avoidable tragedy, were not learned. It is vital that this House is empowered to make sure that the recommendations of phase 2 are implemented promptly, because important recommendations have not been implemented promptly in the past.

[Mr Lammy]

Does the hon. and learned Lady accept that what took place after the Lakanal House fire should have involved an examination of the Government of the day? That is not to be partisan, but simply to say that it is important that justice applies to everyone. The firemen are not here, but it is important that justice means that anyone, wherever they are and of whichever party—because it may have gone back many years—may be found culpable and must be able to answer for their failure on behalf of these people.

[Joanna Cherry]

I entirely agree. This is the job of the inquiry, but it is also the job of this House, as I said, to scrutinise the political responsibility for factors contributing to this tragedy.

In Scotland, building regulations are devolved. After a tower block fire in Irvine in 1999, just before devolution kicked in, a Select Committee of this House recommended that all cladding on high-rise dwellings should be non-combustible. Subsequent to devolution, that report was taken seriously by Scottish housing authorities, and building regulations in Scotland were duly amended in 2005. All new high rise domestic buildings in Scotland after that date were, by regulation, fitted with non-combustible cladding or a cladding system that met stringent fire tests, and with sprinklers. The same recommendation was seen as optional south of the border. It appears that that has had tragic consequences, so it is vital that this House finds a way to ensure that the inquiry’s recommendations are properly implemented.

It is also the case that a history of deregulation and its legacy has contributed to this tragedy. That history dates back many years and includes previous Conservative party Administrations’ decisions to cut building regulations drastically and the coalition Government’s cutting of fire budgets by around 28% in real terms. Those are facts. The fact is that the regulatory regime for housing and fire safety created in England has contributed to the scale of this tragedy.

I believe that the coalition Government’s policy of austerity has contributed to conditions surrounding the scale of this tragedy. I am conscious of not taking up too much time, so that others can speak, but Labour Members have mentioned cuts made by the Prime Minister to the London fire service when he was Mayor. I have read carefully comments from Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, who notes that a review of the London Fire Brigade’s resources in 2016 warned against any further cuts to its budget and advised that City Hall

“be ready to mitigate any unacceptable negative impacts arising from cuts in frontline resources”

made by the then Mayor, the Prime Minister. Those allegations come from somebody who knows what he is talking about.

Despite those concerns, the Prime Minister, when he was Mayor of London, went on to insist to Londoners that he had improved fire cover, despite cutting the number of firefighters, fire engines and fire stations. When confronted in the Greater London Assembly chamber about that matter, he told a Labour party Assembly Member to “get stuffed”. I am sorry for that language, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that is a fact, and I have seen the video. It is a great indictment of our politics that that sort of approach to such serious matters is seen as acceptable by some.

As the charity Shelter has said, this tragedy outlines the fact that we need a national conversation about some of the broader policy issues, particularly social housing. In Scotland, even under the constraints of Tory and Lib Dem austerity, we have taken steps to build tens of thousands of new social homes. We have got rid of the right to buy, built council houses and reintroduced security of tenure in the private sector. Those things are all widely accepted in other European democracies, and we need to look at improving them in England and Wales.

Finally, the families must never be forgotten. Working with the organisation Inquest, the families have produced a blueprint for the handling of future disasters. They have called in particular for a co-ordinated response from central and local government and emergency services. They have also recommended that a central point be set up for families to contact about missing relatives and for help and information. The views of the families, whose lived experience is central to our consideration of this avoidable tragedy, must be put at the heart of any work that the next Parliament takes forward, to put right the terrible wrong that occurred on that night.

Prime Minister’s Statement

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely correct in what he says. I think it is a feeling that is well known to Members on the other side of the House and well known on our Benches as well. The people of this country, wherever they come from, are coming together now in a desire to get Brexit done, and I hope that this House will today reflect that will.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

At present, the United Kingdom consists of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In both Northern Ireland and Scotland there is no mandate for Brexit. The deal we are being asked to vote for today gives Northern Ireland a deal that keeps it close to the single market and the customs union, subject to its consent. Can the Prime Minister explain to me and my constituents in what way it strengthens the Union of the United Kingdom for Scotland alone to have foisted upon it a Brexit it did not vote for?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid there is a complete conceptual confusion here. Scotland, Northern Ireland—the whole of the UK is coming out of the customs union. Particular arrangements are being put in place to avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland, which I think is an objective that the whole House supports. As for the people of Scotland, they had a referendum, as the hon. and learned Lady knows full well, in 2014, and they voted very substantially to remain in the United Kingdom. That was the correct decision. They were told it was a once-in-a-generation decision, and I see no reason whatever to betray that promise that was made to them then.

Principles of Democracy and the Rights of the Electorate

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Gentleman has made an excellent point. As I was about to say, I supported remain during the referendum campaign, but from the early hours of the morning, when we received the result, I was completely clear about the fact that my job, as a Member of Parliament, and the job of the Government was to deliver on it, and that is exactly what we should be doing.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

May I return the Minister to the subject of EU citizens? When I am out campaigning in the streets of Edinburgh South West in a British general election, EU citizens often come up to me and ask why they are allowed to vote in a Scottish parliamentary election but not in a British general election. Given that EU citizens make a net contribution to the British economy, what possible justification is there for not allowing them to vote for the Government of the whole United Kingdom rather than just the Government of Scotland?

[Oliver Dowden]

It is generally the case that there are not reciprocal voting rights, and our position aligns with that of virtually every other European state in that regard, so I do not think we are outriders in the way that the hon. and learned Lady suggests.

People were surprised that we actually delivered on that referendum. We were not the only ones to support holding it. In the Lobby, we won by 544 votes to 53 to give people a say, which is 10:1. Indeed, seven of the eight Liberal Democrat MPs voted for it. That was quite a strong showing, really, for a party that now says that the outcome of the referendum does not count. After we voted for the referendum, we went to the public and made our case. Did any of us make the argument then, as is now being advanced by some, that the referendum was merely advisory? No, we were absolutely clear that this was in or out, remain or leave. Every vote was equal, every vote would count, and whatever the outcome, we would respect it: no caveats, no small print.

As I said to the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, I supported remain in the campaign but—do you know what—I accepted immediately that we had lost. The British people took a different view, and that was their right. From the moment that result was declared I accepted it, because one thing I believe passionately is that politicians do not get to choose which votes to respect. When we ask the public for an answer and they give us one, we should simply get on and deliver it, even if it was not the result that was desired. The House seemed overwhelmingly to accept this, and it invoked article 50 with very little dissent. Immediately afterwards, we had an election in which 80% of the people voted for parties whose manifestos explicitly supported the United Kingdom leaving the EU. This represented a second democratic event relating to our membership of the European Union and a second mandate from the British people to leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

If the worst thing the Irish could say of the European Union is that it made them vote twice, I can imagine they have a lot worse things to say about their relationship and their union with England.

This week, we had a sterling reminder from the United Kingdom Supreme Court that in the UK we live in a constitutional democracy with checks and balances on Executive power. We were also reminded that so long as Scotland remains part of this Union, Scots law and the Scottish judiciary are deserving of respect—because let us not forget that the 11 UK Supreme Court justices followed the unanimous decision of the three judges in Scotland’s highest court, the Inner House of the Court of Session. In Scotland, our democratic and constitutional tradition goes back to the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, which we will be celebrating 700 years of next year, and the Claim of Right in 1689. The principle of those documents is that neither the sovereign nor the Government is above the law. It was very refreshing to hear Lady Hale remind us that the same has been the position in England since at least 1611 when she said in her statement on Tuesday:

“As long ago as 1611, the court held that ‘the King (who was then the government) hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him’.”

So constitutional democracy means not a tyranny by the Executive but parliamentary democracy with checks and balances. As Lord Drummond Young said in Scotland’s highest court:

“The courts cannot subject the actings of the executive to political scrutiny, but they can and should ensure that the body charged with performing that task, Parliament, is able to do so.”

I do not think that anyone on these Benches will take any lectures from members of the Conservative and Unionist party about the importance of democracy when it was their leader who tried to shut down parliamentary democracy for five weeks at a time of constitutional crisis in the UK.

Lady Hale stressed that there are two—[Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention if the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) wants to make one.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for offering me the chance to intervene. The point I would make is that we have had this huge national drama over the past couple of weeks as to whether the Prorogation will be ended, because so many Members of Parliament were so extremely zealous to attend and to address the issue of Brexit. But if we look at the Opposition Benches, there are almost as many SNP Members here as Labour Members—that is it—and there are only four of them.

[Joanna Cherry]

Perhaps if the Government brought some proper business forward, there would be more people here.

I want to return to what Lady Hale said. The judgment of the Supreme Court this week was not very complicated. Many Government Members suggested yesterday that it made new law—it did not. Lady Hale was simply expressing a principle that goes far back in the Scottish constitutional tradition and also in the English tradition that the Government are not above the law. She stressed two principles of our democracy: parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary accountability. The Executive must be accountable to Parliament. It puzzles me that so many parliamentarians thought this was a novel statement of the British constitution, but that is perhaps because of the lack of a written constitution in the United Kingdom.

Many Members in this House—particularly those on the Opposition Benches—will be familiar with the writings of Justice Albie Sachs of the South African Supreme Court, a great jurist and freedom fighter. When he sat down to write the constitution of the new South Africa, he was shocked to find that Britain, which he was looking to for guidance, did not have a written constitution. One of the things that the Brexit crisis and the horror with which the UK Supreme Court judgment has been greeted by some illustrates is the need for the United Kingdom to have a written constitution. But I am afraid to say that I will not be holding my breath for constitutional reform in the United Kingdom. The Scots are very familiar with the oft mentioned promise of federalism whenever Scotland looks close to voting for independence. Gordon Brown is normally wheeled out to promise federalism, but there is never any appetite in this House to make that a reality.

There are many things that could be done to improve British democracy, but the horrified reaction to the checks and balances imposed by the United Kingdom Supreme Court last week shows me that Government Members do not actually understand their own constitution and would probably find it very hard to write it down. Brexit has thrown the constitution of the United Kingdom into crisis. In 2014, during the Scottish independence referendum, which was a great deal more civilised affair than the EU referendum—[Interruption.] Well, nobody lost their life during the Scottish independence referendum.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

No, I will not give way. The Scottish Conservatives—and sometimes, I am afraid to say, the Scottish Labour party, but in fairness, not the English Labour party—often like to peddle the myth that the Scottish independence referendum was a violent affair. It was not. I was there. It was a celebration of democracy, and I am pleased to say that nobody lost their life.

I return to the Brexit process. It has thrown the UK constitution into crisis because although there are four constituent parts of this Union, two out of the four of them voted remain, and that has been wholly ignored. That could never happen in the European Union. If the European Union was taking a decision as momentous as Brexit, even a small country the size of Ireland, Scotland or Malta would have a veto.

The reason why this is important is that while the Unionist parties were participating in the festival of democracy that was the 2014 independence referendum, they promised people in Scotland that we were an equal partner in the Union and that the way to retain our EU citizenship was to vote to remain part of the UK. Both those promises have been broken. The Scottish Parliament has come under attack, and constitutional conventions such as the Sewel convention that were put on a statutory footing have had a carriage and horses driven through them.

The result of all that is that a YouGov poll published earlier this month showed that the majority of Scots want a second vote on independence. Of course, the last time Scotland voted for Members of the Scottish Parliament, it elected a majority of MSPs who want a second independence referendum, and the last time Scotland voted for MPs in this House, it elected a majority of MPs who want a second independence referendum. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Many Conservative Members—in particular the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and the Attorney General have said in public, “You cannot keep a country in a union against its will.” Of course, they were talking about England and the European Union. It is going to prove impossible in the long term to keep Scotland in this Union against its will, and if democracy means anything it means recognising the mandate that exists in Scotland for a second independence referendum and granting the Scots a second independence referendum, because that is what the majority want.

Prime Minister's Update

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for what she is doing, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is, I think, involved in the cross-party work for Members for a deal. I can absolutely agree that if and when we are able to bring back an agreement, one that I think will work for this House and for this country, following 17 and 18 October, we will of course put it to Parliament, and I do hope that it will then get assent.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

In my naivety, Mr Speaker, I thought we were coming to hear a statement on the Supreme Court judgment, but instead we have been treated to the sort of populist rant one expects to hear from the leader of a tin-pot dictatorship or perhaps the current President of the States. Does the Prime Minister appreciate that his display is anathema to the democratic constitutional tradition of Scotland, which was upheld in the UK Supreme Court yesterday? I pray to God that he will not take his own country on to the rocks, but if he is intent on doing that, will he first of all recognise the democratic mandate of the Scottish Parliament? He spoke a moment ago about consent to be governed holding the key. If he must take England on to the rocks—and I hope he does not—will he recognise the democratic mandate of the Scottish Parliament and agree the means for a second independence referendum to be held in Scotland?

[The Prime Minister]

I do congratulate the hon. and learned Lady on bringing that action, because she did produce an astonishing result. Let us be in no doubt: it was a groundbreaking judgment, it was a novel judgment, and it had the effect that we can all see before us today. Here we are back in this House of Commons. On her second point, however, I must say that the people of Scotland voted decisively in 2014 to remain in the United Kingdom, the most successful union of nations in history, and they were told that it was a once-in-a-generation vote. It is absolutely wrong of her now to try to break that promise.