Ukraine

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. We will have to see what further downstream effects there are on collaboration of all kinds. Hitherto, I have been broadly in favour of continuing artistic and scientific collaboration, but in the current circumstances it is hard to see how even those can continue as normal.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The mix of practice and principle is the test of democratic politics, exemplified at its best when this House comes together in common cause. The test of leadership is the mix of vision and will, and the Prime Minister is to be commended for his wilful, clear-sighted determination. Will he now reassure the House that he is in close touch with those countries close to Ukraine, where nerves will be frayed? Will he send them the urgent message that this House and this nation will always stand together and behind free nations?

[The Prime Minister]

As so often, my right hon. Friend is precisely right. That is why, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary, we have been visiting Poland, Romania, the Balts—all those who are now feeling such deep unease at what is happening.

Human Rights Legislation

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman has done one thing with his words: highlight the importance of protecting free speech and rambunctious debate, even though he is wrong in everything he said.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is to be commended on the statement, but will he be clear that we need to challenge the very principle of natural rights, which gave rise to the Human Rights Act? It has had the effect of emphasising individual interest above social solidarity, weakening communal will and undermining the sovereignty of this Parliament, which is and always has been the primary guarantor of Britain’s rights. Will my right hon. Friend conduct a root and branch reform of that assumption about rights, put aside consideration of the Human Rights Act, which is part of the Blairite legacy, and challenge those parts of the convention that frustrate this Parliament and the wishes of the British people?

[Dominic Raab]

I always enjoy hearing my right hon. Friend’s side of the argument. As John Stuart Mill said:

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”

I do not take quite the same view as my right hon. Friend, but I welcome his iconoclasm and his challenge to ensure that we get a better balance between individual rights— which, as he has often said to me, Bentham described as “nonsense upon stilts”—and communal and societal needs, and particularly public protection in the areas that I outlined, whether parole reform, police forces or deportation of foreign national offenders.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I rise in support of the Bill and am keen to see it make progress through the House. Before I go on, this is my first opportunity to say how delighted I am to see the Secretary of State in his post and the new Minister in his place. I echo the comments made by the Secretary of State about the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland).

The Government are committed to fulfilling their 2019 manifesto pledge, and I am pleased that we are committing to yet another pledge to protect our democracy. The Bill will—at last—streamline our judicial system in both England and Wales, making it much more efficient. It is a good example of justice machinery, and I am pleased that my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire will experience the benefits of these improvements.

I am glad that the Government recognise the impact of the pandemic on our court system and, as well as managing those pressures, are learning some helpful lessons and continuing with the steps they took during the pandemic to bring some court proceedings online, saving valuable time and resources. I acknowledge that the Bill benefits both England and Wales and, as the representative of a constituency with roughly 60 miles of the border between our two nations, very much welcome provisions that will remove the statutory requirement that magistrates courts must be divided into separate local justice areas. My constituents will often travel across the border for employment, education and other things, and the judiciary is no exception. In that spirit, I will focus my remarks on the courts elements of the Bill.

I commend the Government for the work they have already done, particularly in the field of domestic abuse. I was proud last year to be a member of the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee and am even prouder that that Bill was prioritised by the Government during the height of the pandemic. The Government, conscious that coronavirus was not the biggest threat for those enduring lockdown with their abuser, made sure that the Committee could meet and that both sides of the House could scrutinise and improve that Bill.

One of the many strengths of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is the improvements it has made to the family courts. On that, I would like to see this Bill go further. In family proceedings, the Domestic Abuse Act introduced an automatic ban on cross-examination in person when one party has been convicted of, given a caution for or charged with certain offences against the witness, or vice versa. The provisions also introduced an automatic ban on cross-examination in person when an on-notice protective injunction is in place between the party and witness or when there is other evidence of domestic abuse. That is a crucial step, and one that I am very proud of.

Having praised the Government, I will ask the Minister to go further—he will not be surprised by this—and consider further amendments for family court proceedings. I do so on behalf of my constituent, Natalie Davies, who came to see me and has given me permission to mention her and raise her case. She lives in my constituency with her partner, baby and two primary school-aged children from her previous relationship. In February, she came to ask for advice due to the complexity and sensitivity of a legal dispute between her and her ex-partner.

I will not go into too much detail about Natalie’s case. However, while the conclusion reached by the judge was in her favour, her experience in the family court was completely unacceptable. In her words, it was a “complete misery”. The way in which she was treated by the judge was simply wrong for a modern age. She claims that she was repeatedly undermined throughout her case, which caused her immense distress, and she felt as though a completely one-sided approach was taken. Her barrister later confirmed that the judge had to be persuaded to read both sides of the case. During her hearing, the judge referred to her as “young lady” and commented on the fact that she was “already”—his word—expecting a baby with her new partner. He also googled her home and searched for images of her new home on Rightmove.

Natalie complained to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office, as is proper, but she had no response, until two days before a further hearing with the same judge. She was hastily told that her complaint had been rejected. She was told that no misconduct had taken place. Had the judge fallen asleep, that would constitute misconduct, but patronising—even misogynistic—remarks and apparent predetermination on the part of the individual somehow did not constitute misconduct. I find that deeply troubling.

All in the House would of course agree that the judiciary must be free from direction by Ministers. That is entirely appropriate. However, the existing system is not working. This might well be out of scope of the Bill, but it appears to me and the other individuals to whom Natalie has introduced me since coming to see me in my surgery that we have an imbalance here, which I wonder whether we may explore as the Bill travels through the House.

We must look at a situation in which individuals do not have access to a clear and transparent complaints system. Natalie’s complaint was backed up with a written statement by her highly trained barrister, and yet it was still dismissed out of hand.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a compelling case along particular lines. She is right about access to legal recourse. I do not know whether she has had a chance to look at the important speech given last week by the Attorney General, which sets out how, in parallel, people are using the courts to perpetuate political debates. Ironically, some people do not have access to justice, and others are using the courts for political ends, which is why the Bill is so important.

[Fay Jones]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I bow to his experience in these matters. That should be considered as the Bill travels through the House. I want to see it make progress and I commend the Government for their ambitions thus far, but I would like, and would be grateful for, a conversation with the Minister about what we can do to ensure that all those who have the inevitably difficult experience of going through the family court are treated with the utmost respect.

International Aid: Treasury Update

John Hayes Excerpts

Programme motion
Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

It is not an either/or. This Government are doing both. We are one of the largest donors to the UN peacekeeping operations and that is why we are making a difference in countries across the globe, not just through our ODA budget but through all the other ways we express global leadership.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Chancellor is right to say that the countries with big hearts also need clear heads, so will he confirm that, with the roadmap he has set out today and the proposals before the House, we will still be spending 20% more on overseas aid than we were when Labour was last in government?

[Rishi Sunak]

If my numbers are right, as a percentage of GDP we were for the last few years spending double what Labour ever spent when it was in office, and my right hon. Friend is right about what we will be doing even at this reduced level.

Today’s approach is a pragmatic approach to meeting our commitments to the world’s poorest today and to have the secure fiscal foundations we need to meet those commitments for decades to come. We should be proud of what UK overseas aid means to millions of the world’s poorest people. It means tens of millions of girls around the world getting a better education. It means food parcels stamped with a Union Jack arriving in famine stricken countries such as Syria and Somalia. It means wind turbines, solar panels and hydroelectric dams generating clean energy in developing countries. I am proud, as I know the whole House will be proud, of the extraordinary good this country is doing around the world.

Debate on the Address

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 11th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

Now then. As we recover from the pandemic, this Queen’s Speech is just what the doctor ordered. I can tell you now that the residents of Ashfield and Eastwood are absolutely delighted with the contents of the Queen’s Speech. This is the type of Queen’s Speech that actually justifies the why I and many of my colleagues won the red wall seats in 2019.

We are getting tough on law and order, we are getting tough on illegal immigration and we are winning the culture war. Our asylum system is broken, and the eagerly awaited sovereign borders Bill will ensure illegal immigrants cannot claim asylum if they have travelled through a safe country to get here. This is excellent news for genuine asylum seekers who do need our help.

Our brave ex-servicemen should not have to worry about getting a knock on the door 40 years after serving in Northern Ireland. We are going to fix that. They deserve better.

The media and the Opposition called our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill controversial. Imagine that, Madam Deputy Speaker: a Bill that ensures the most violent criminals get locked up for longer; a Bill that ensures public nuisances like Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter are prevented from damaging property and disrupting public life; a Bill that sees sex offenders locked up for longer; a Bill that sees thugs who attack our emergency workers locked up for longer. There is nothing controversial here at all. This is what the British people want. This is what they expect, and I welcome it.

But I would like to see us go further, especially with antisocial behaviour from nuisance neighbours who make their neighbourhood a miserable place to live. Imagine coming home from a hard day’s work with the usual lot causing trouble, causing problems. There is excessive noise, swearing, threatening behaviour, abusive behaviour, a lack of reasoning, a lack of common sense. It sounds like a shadow Cabinet reshuffle to me, but this actually happens every single day in this country. I hope that, on top of this fantastic Bill, we can look at this very important issue.

The Environment Bill is good news. Even the Lib Dems, although they are not here, should be supporting it, because they do their bit to cut emissions by all travelling to work in one minibus.

The Labour party will most probably start banging on again about the NHS, but that ship has sailed for them. They are not trusted on the NHS or social care. Their legacy in Ashfield is a £1 million a week PFI debt on our hospital. Our brilliant NHS, or as we call it, our brilliant national health service, is safe in our hands. The Labour party, however, has its own NHS, which is the national hindsight service. This service is just over a year old and basically is a think-tank of Opposition MPs who have never spoken to anyone outside the Tea Room or Twitter. What they do is claim credit for every good thing that happens in our country, and when things go wrong, they just say, “I told you so.” This is a failing service, so its leader has leapt to another bandwagon, which is home decorations. While he was lurking about in John Lewis looking at wallpaper, our Prime Minister was up in Hartlepool talking to real people about real issues and his vision for the area, and winning elections.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend is making such a robust speech in defence of Ashfield and our country. Is it not the truth that battles are not won, as he put it, on Twitter or in the Tea Room, but up and down this country, and that this Government in this Queen’s Speech are speaking for the silent majority who have been ignored or derided by the metropolitan elite for too long?

[Lee Anderson]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely spot on. It is always worth remembering—a little bit of advice for the Opposition—that it is the silent majority that wins elections. It is the silent majority that will win the next election for us. Another word of warning for the Labour party: if we carry on with Queen’s Speeches like this one every year, the red wall seats will stay with us for a very long time. When they refurbish this Chamber, we are going to need extra Benches on this side of the House.

Nuclear Test Veterans: Service Medal

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Long ago in a far off place, men who were just a short step from boyhood took risks, without recognising them, as they served their nation. The things they did in those distant days have stayed with them for all the years since. They were the servicemen who are now our nuclear test veterans. What they did for their country in the 1950s was of inestimable value; what we have done for them since pales by comparison.

As a Cabinet Office Minister, I persuaded the then Prime Minister David Cameron and then Chancellor George Osborne to make an ex gratia payment—funds of £30 million, indeed—available to nuclear veterans. Those payments were administered through the Nuclear Community Charity Fund, which was established back then, to go some way to recognising the price the veterans paid in declining health and diminished wellbeing. The veterans have struggled with all kinds of conditions attributable to their exposure to radiation during the time of the nuclear tests; worse still is the pain they feel having unknowingly passed those conditions on to their descendants.

I speak today for those aged men and their deserving families to ask for simply this: that the Government recognise Britain’s 22,000 nuclear veterans with a much deserved medal to mark their patriotic service. They were at the forefront of Britain’s foray into the atomic age. Atomic veterans not only risked life and limb then, during the course of their duties, but those brave British personnel faced radioactive smog and searing nuclear heat which altered their very DNA.

At a time of great scientific advancement, mankind’s discovery heralded a destructive power that the world did not then fully comprehend, for the lethal dangers of radiation were not at first fully understood. In the darkness of our ignorance, nuclear test veterans were drafted into a programme in which they stood just a few miles from apocalyptic explosions, flew through nuclear winds, walked through radioactive sand and drank contaminated water.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forward; he is absolutely right to ask for this medal. Does he agree that it is right and proper that these veterans, like most of our veterans, have appropriate recognition for their service and, further, that although the 2018 reformation of the Advisory Military Sub-Committee was welcome, the delay is not? This must be dealt with as a priority because, as we have seen from the death of one of the last remaining second world war veterans, His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, every month is precious.

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The debt does not disappear just because the years roll by, and the debt that we owe these people can be marked in precisely the way that I have recommended and that he has endorsed.

Nuclear power is an extraordinary force, sufficient to warp the cellular building blocks of man, but that is something that the veterans now—the servicemen then—could not possibly have understood. This was their duty. They were part of a mission to develop a safe and effective nuclear deterrent for Britain that would keep the nation safe and strong throughout the cold war; the fruits of that mission defend the realm to this very day. The details of what nuclear veterans endured in service to their country have been set out time and again over the course of a long campaign to grant them appropriate recognition.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done over many years on behalf of the nuclear test veterans. One reason given for not giving these men a very well-deserved medal is that they were not put in any danger. Does he agree that that is obviously ludicrous? These days we would not ask any service personnel to what they did because of the danger posed. It was clearly a dangerous situation and should be recognised as such.

[Sir John Hayes]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more, and I thank her for what she said. I will deal with and, indeed, reinforce the point she makes when I come to discuss the consideration of the matter so far and what more now needs to be done. She is quite right, as I shall explain.

For me, this journey began, as the hon. Lady suggested, long ago: I went to see the Labour Defence Minister at the time—so we are stretching back in time, Madam Deputy Speaker—the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who gave the case a good and fair hearing when I took veterans to see him. I know that he was then, and I imagine he continues to be, very sympathetic to the case. Time and again we have been blocked by a combination of the top brass—I do not know whether the Minister regards himself as top brass—and the military establishment in the Ministry of Defence. Politicians from all parties in this House have typically heard the sense that has been offered again today by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and, to a lesser extent, by me in making this argument.

Over the years since then, I have heard heartbreaking stories of lives forever altered by radiation sickness. I have witnessed the tireless efforts of those involved in obtaining formal recognition for the servicemen who selflessly endured the unknown risks of atomic testing. Indeed, I have come to know many such veterans well. There is, of course, a rate of attrition as these people become older and deal with some of the illnesses that I have described, but there are remaining veterans. I have come to know well one of my constituents, Douglas Hern, who was one such person drafted into the south Pacific nuclear testing programme. Every meeting I have attended and every story I have heard reminds me of our moral duty to deliver a suitable emblem of the debt that we owe not only to the more than 1,000 nuclear test veterans who are still with us but to their families. I see no reason—perhaps the Minister will tell me why it is not a good idea—why families should not collect medals on behalf of those they have loved and lost.

In 2019, following a meeting that I led with the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association, the then Secretary of State for Defence announced that he would ask the honours committee to re-examine whether a medal should be awarded to nuclear test veterans. He rightly stated:

“We must never forget their courage and bravery in contributing to keeping their country safe during the Cold War.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that it met only half a dozen times in the two years after he missioned it to look at this matter, and after no testimony whatsoever from veterans or veterans’ organisations, the advisory military sub-committee refused to recommend the award of a medal model on the grounds that—the hon. Member for Glasgow North West made reference to this—such service

“did not meet the level of risk and rigour”

required. Not enough risk? These men flew fighter planes through mushroom clouds and felt the heat of nuclear explosions on their bare skin. Knowing what we know now of the life-altering effects of radiation exposure, to state that serving in that environment did not amount to risk and rigour sufficient to deserve a medal is—I put it as mildly as I can—bewildering, baffling, astonishing. There is clear evidence of a legacy of heartache and of pain—literally and metaphorically—that spans generations. There is a legacy of cancers that cut great men down to size before their time, wives who suffered the unimaginable pain of infant mortality, and a generation of children born with life-altering conditions.

The United Kingdom has a long tradition of marking the service of our personnel through the award of medals for particular operations. My father, a second world war veteran, wore them proudly. I do not have them, but I have no doubt that the Minister wears his proudly. Campaign medals have rightly been granted for novel and non-combat operations in the past. The Minister will know of the Ebola Medal for Service in West Africa and the medals awarded to remote drone operators in 2017. There are clearly established precedents for the awarding of service medals for non-combat operations. In 2012, David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, personally intervened to secure a medal for Arctic convoy veterans, so there is a specific precedent for the award of a medal long after the event it marks.

The time for excuses has long passed. Now is the time for decisive action. For the veterans and the mothers and fathers, children and grandchildren affected, I urge the Government to act before it is too late. It is time to step up for those who stepped forward when their country needed them. It is time our generation recognised what those generations before did to make us safe. In the twilight of their storied lives, it should be our privilege to present our nuclear test veterans with an emblem of our gratitude for what was endured in the name of Queen and country. Not to honour these good and true people who served their nation would disappoint them, but it would dishonour all of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

The hon. Gentleman gets to the nub of the problem. I have seen some of the drama on Sunday night in “Call the Midwife”, and it is clearly a good and emotive production. The difficulty the Government have is that the evidential basis linking conditions such as that to these tests is with the scientific community and in its opinion it is not of the standard whereby we can draw clear evidential proof. That is the problem we have. That is not a decision for a Minister—that is not a decision for me. I have my own views on medals, and I have worked hard to support this cohort in other ways. That is the nub of the problem, and it is a difficult one, because I know it is frustrating for the families and for campaigners. That is the situation we are in, and work continues to identify the links between illnesses that people think they received from nuclear tests and the actual radiation exposure itself.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister is being extremely generous in giving way, so I am grateful to him. I understand the argument about compensation, which is why of course the then Chancellor George Osborne made an ex gratia payment—I did emphasise that—but the medal is a bang to rights case. The fact that this committee suggested an absence of risk and rigour is extraordinary. There can be no greater risk than going into a radiation cloud. Surely the Minister, with his expertise, recognises that. Can he commit tonight to refer this back to that committee and at least ask it to take evidence from the veterans and their representatives, which it failed to do last time?

[Johnny Mercer]

There is an appeal going into this process, and I will write to the AMSC and ask it to make sure that it has seen veterans and their groups when making the decision in that appeal process.

In addition to maintaining access to compensation for all veterans who have suffered ill health due to service, I am committed to ensuring the provision of excellent wraparound care. That includes access to free confidential advice and support on a wide range of issues through the Veterans Welfare Service; maintaining access to bespoke services such as the veterans trauma network in England; and levelling up veterans’ mental health provision through the launch of Op Courage.

I also recognise that veterans are civilians and most access support through regular NHS services wherever they live in the UK. I am rolling out a veteran-awareness accreditation programme for GP surgeries and hospital trusts, with over 800 GP surgeries and nearly 60 trusts signed up. Let me be clear: there should be no reason in this country today why any GP surgery or NHS trust is not veteran-aware accredited. This is a duty we have to the nation; it is something we all have a responsibility in. I will be relentlessly campaigning for every NHS trust and GP surgery to become veteran-aware.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings for his tireless efforts. Anybody who tirelessly campaigns for veterans is clearly an ally of mine. We are committed as a Government, more than any Government before us, to getting the veterans’ case right, and that includes those who participated in the nuclear test programme. Those veterans made a huge contribution to ensuring the security of each and every one of us by ensuring that we had a capable and resilient nuclear deterrent during the height of the cold war. I reiterate my absolute support for those service people and I pay tribute to their service.

This idea that veterans who served in the nuclear tests are not worthy is completely wrong. There is no hierarchy of veterans in this country. The challenge in this particular case is the causal link between exposure to radiation and the illnesses that then present in individuals—and their families, because this goes on for some time. I am committed to making sure that we achieve fairness. I will make sure that the views of veterans’ groups and their representatives are portrayed to the AMSC. But I also have a duty to maintain the rigour of the system. Awards and medals always have been inherently difficult and at times divisive, but I am sure we will get there in the end—we will arrive at the right answer—and I urge my right hon. Friend to keep going with his campaign.

Question put and agreed to.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle). I personally believe that, faced with the most severe challenge for any Government since the second world war, this Chancellor and his Budget are entirely realistic. We are and must remain the party of sound Budgets, and we must return to borrowing only to pay for investment. That is our long-term aim, but faced with this pandemic, we have to make accommodations.

Although I commend the Chancellor for his Budget, the most important thing, of course, is to get the economy moving again and get us out of lockdown. The success of the vaccine roll-out, which will get the economy moving, has been absolutely staggering. Only this morning, I went to Lord’s cricket ground—probably the only time I shall ever be invited there, to the executive suite—for my second jab. I was in and out literally within 10 minutes. Like all the wars we fight, perhaps we do not perform very well at first, but we exit well; we have exited this war against the virus more effectively than any other country in Europe, and that is down to this Government and this Prime Minister.

As with all Budgets, we have to be realistic. I may make some gentle criticism, but I fully accept that the Chancellor has been faced today with an impossible task.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

In making those gentle criticisms, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will challenge the Government on the issue of small businesses that now have to pay VAT when dealing with the European Union. They can reclaim it, but there is a delay, which brings cash-flow problems. I am mindful particularly of the heritage craft sector, from blacksmiths to silversmiths and so on; they do so much for our economy and employ nearly 200,000 people.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My right hon. Friend makes an entirely valid point. One of the points that I want to make in my short contribution is that we have to accept that the high street and small businesses have moved on. The truth is that we have a very unequal tax system. Giants such as Amazon are paying an infinitely small proportion of their profits and turnover in business rates, and are driving small businesses and shops out of the high street. I personally think that there is something to be said for abolishing business rates all together. How would we pay for that? We could actually pay for it through a 3% increase on VAT on all businesses. That, of course, would hit the very large businesses such as Amazon, which pay derisory levels of tax, very hard indeed. My right hon. Friend makes a very fair point.

May I repeat what I say in every Budget? Perhaps I am a bit of a broken record on this, but I do believe in transparency, and I believe that ultimately we should try to reform our whole tax system. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has counted 1,651 tax changes since May 2010, including: 58 changes to air passenger duty; 130 changes to national insurance; 68 changes to stamp duty; 256 changes to VAT; 53 changes to tobacco duty; and 258 changes to vehicle excise duty. Our tax code is 17,000 pages long—or it was in 2015; it is even longer now. We should compare that with the tax code of an enterprise economy such as Hong Kong, which is only 350 pages long.

As things get easier next year, my plea to the Chancellor is to make our taxes clear, simple and fair. Tax complexity creates a structural bias in favour of the very rich and the big corporations, and that is not fair. Global giants can hire entire departments of tax advisers. I therefore agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings: let us look after middle-class people, who pay PAYE and bear the brunt of all tax increases, and let us direct tax increases at those who can pay, namely the digital giants.

Covid-19

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to the Deepings, with Sir John Hayes and his wife.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]]

Millions of Britons live in remote rural places, including here in Lincolnshire. The Prime Minister will know that isolation fuels fear, which exacerbates disadvantage, and that only vaccination will bring the safety that assuages those fears. Will he reassure my constituents that local doctors’ surgeries will be equipped and supplied so that they are able to vaccinate the vulnerable not later, but sooner?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, it is our intention that doctors’ surgeries, which clearly play a crucial part in the vaccination programme, will be equipped as fast as possible with supplies of the vaccine—as plentiful, I hope, as the copies of “Wisden” that adorn my right hon. Friend’s shelf. That is what we intend to do. And may I say how delightful it was to see his wife Susan briefly in the background?

Public Health

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Gentleman, who is also from Merseyside, makes an important point. It is undoubtedly clear that the best way to preserve life among those who suffer from diseases that are not covid is to keep covid under control. Everybody who works in an NHS hospital will confirm that, because the pressures on the NHS from covid make it harder to treat cancer. In this second outbreak we have successfully managed to keep cancer services going—going at over 100% of their normal last year in many areas—thanks to the hard work of the NHS.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is, of course, right to say that measured controls and restrictions are necessary to defeat this disease, but will he confirm that these tiers are not set in stone? Will he confirm that the review in December will, in the words of a letter he sent to me today, mean that areas will be considered within counties, on their “merits”, and that action will be taken accordingly to ease those restrictions, where possible?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, of course. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out earlier what happens if an area meets the five criteria. We have set out those five criteria: the pressures on the NHS, which we were just discussing; the case rates; the case rates in the over-60s—this is because of the direct impact that has on hospital admissions; the direction of travel of those case rates—this is because if it is rising fast, that is more dangerous; and the positivity. If an area meets the five criteria, of course we will seek to reduce the tier on that basis, and we will do that on the basis of the most localised geography that it is epidemiologically relevant to act in. This is about the human geographies that the Prime Minister spoke about with such eloquence earlier.

Let me turn to some of the many speeches that have been made, as I want to highlight a few. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) gave a wise speech, talking about how there is no alternative. This phrase—“There is no alternative”—came up again, for example, from my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) talked of the uncertainty in decision making, which was meant not as a criticism but as a description. That is something that I and those of us with the burden of decision making in this pandemic know only too well. But, as he said, there are facts, including about the power of vaccination, and on that he is absolutely right.

There were a number of excellent speeches from Members across the House both in favour of and against this action. I understand that reasonable people have different views on what are very difficult decisions. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) talked about the lesser of evils, and many talked about the decisions ahead of us not being easy because none is straightforward. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, it is about choosing the least damaging course to take.

I pay particular tribute to some of the newer Members of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), who made impassioned pleas in support of the Government. They said that it is not about doing what will win short-term popularity, but doing what is right, and that is the approach that we seek to take. Others asked about the publication of more data in real time. The challenge is that we publish data on the day that it comes to us, but it takes a few days to get all the results in and therefore to know the true trajectory of the disease, so there is a natural and unavoidable gap between getting the full data and the time that we are in now. That is why we look at the data from up to four days ago, because after that date, it can increase.

Many Members made points about the hospitality sector. My heart goes out to those in the hospitality sector. The Prime Minister has set out more support for wet pubs, and rightly so. The hospitality sector has benefited from more support from this Government in the pandemic than any other sector. Overall, the economic support provided by this Government has been set out by the International Monetary Fund as being one of the most generous packages in the world. We cannot support and protect all jobs, but we seek to protect as many jobs as we can, because we can protect jobs as well as protecting lives—that is the goal. We cannot protect all lives, and we cannot protect all jobs, but we seek to protect them both.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) said that we have the right to do not what we please but what is right. In a pandemic, that is true of us all—it is true of every individual who has to choose how they act. The restrictions in these measures are not what everybody should push the boundaries of, but the limits up to which we should go, because we all have within ourselves the ability to stop the passing on of this virus to others. She made that point clearly struggling with the restrictions on liberty on which we vote tonight, but coming to the view that they are a lesser restriction than those we live under today, and they are a necessary restriction in order to protect life.

The consequences of inaction would be far worse than the consequences of these actions. Voting against these restrictions tonight is, in fact, a vote to allow the entire system to lapse tomorrow. I know that every Member of this House wants to control the virus, and no one wants to see the NHS overwhelmed, so support the motion to protect the NHS. Support the motion to back the nurses who we all clapped in the spring. Support the motion to back the doctors working on our wards every night. Support the motion to back the teachers who are working so hard to keep our schools open and to back the care workers looking after the most vulnerable. Support this motion to back the businesses that do not want another national lockdown, because that would be the only alternative. By voting for this motion, Members are supporting all those people and the public, who want to see us act together.

I can honestly say that from all my experience this terrible year, this proposal draws on all the lessons and all the learnings from our experience.

We have come so far in our fight against the virus. We are on the cusp of the scientific breakthroughs, the vaccines and the community testing that will let us cast aside the curbs that it demands. The end is in sight. The measures are temporary and time-limited, but no less necessary for that. The return of our freedoms is on the horizon. The virus is back under control. The NHS has been protected. Let us not throw it all away now. We must have the resolve, not to do what is easy, but what is right. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Colum Eastwood]

This withdrawal agreement took a long time to negotiate. The British Government and this Prime Minister signed up to it, and it was called a fantastic deal. It was to protect us from a hard border in Ireland. We spent 30 years trying to get rid of hard borders and division and trying to bring people together to allow local people to work together to make decisions on behalf of local communities.

I cannot understand how anybody who is supposed to be a devolutionist and whose party is in government—even though the right hon. Gentleman is sometimes at odds with the leadership of his party—would want any Minister based in Whitehall to make decisions over the heads of the Democratic Unionist party, Sinn Féin, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party or the Ulster Unionist party. This Bill would allow a Whitehall Minister to override the wishes and very strong views of people in Northern Ireland on issues such as fracking and water charges. Who wants to see that happen in our devolved areas?

More than any policy risk, the Bill creates even more instability in our system, and we cannot afford that. Just look at what has happened over the past number of years. Alongside the attack on the protocol and the risk of a hard border in Ireland, the Bill rides a coach and horses through the Good Friday agreement in so many ways. If this Government, as they profess, support the Good Friday agreement and devolution and want local people to work together, spilling their sweat and not their blood, to bring about economic progress and change how society works, they will take away the risk of the Bill, because causes 46 and 47 would override, undercut and undermine all that progress.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

At the heart of the purpose of politics is a marriage between the common good and the national interest, and trade is at the heart of both. This Bill—in particular, clauses 46 and 47—makes that principle real, yet the supporters of these amendments seem either unaware or unwilling to accept that trade is a national policy and has to be determined in the interests of the whole kingdom. Of course, as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, co-operation and collaboration are necessary with the constituent parts of that kingdom, but in the end trade deals are negotiated by the Government as a whole.

The idea vested in the amendments in this group—notably, amendment 33—that Ministers should act only with the permission of people in those constituent parts is preposterous, as anyone on either side of the House who has served as a Minister knows. Of course, collaboration requires a relationship between those in the devolved Assemblies and Ministers here, but that relationship is one in which the devolved Minister knows that the buck starts and stops with the national Government.

[Alan Brown]

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has read clause 46 or the amendment correctly. Clause 46 says:

“A Minister of the Crown may…provide financial assistance”

in respect of matters of devolved interest. It is not about trade; it is about the UK Government being able to take decisions on behalf of the devolved nations on matters that are otherwise devolved. Why is it so objectionable to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations on matters that should be devolved anyway?

[Sir John Hayes]

The problem at the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s proposition—this was reflected in the opening speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central—is that the Scottish National party, the Scottish separatists, believe that the relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the people of Scotland should be devised and delivered only through the prism of them and their friends. The truth of the matter is that the United Kingdom Government have a relationship with Scotland irrespective of the SNP and its friends.

[Alan Brown]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

No, I will not give way again.

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

No. I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am conscious of your strictures, Dame Eleanor, that we should not stray into the realms of loquaciousness. Many other Members on both sides of the Chamber wish to contribute, so I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have shared many arguments and, indeed, many agreements over a considerable period of time. I suspect that we are not going to agree about this.

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Sir John Hayes]

I am not going to give way. I have made that clear.

Although it is true that the vast majority of the people of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland may not be gripped every waking moment by the minutiae of British politics, millions of patriotic Britons across all parts of our kingdom, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—small business owners, farmers, fishermen, employers, workers; everyone from trade unionists to tree surgeons—expect this Government to get Brexit done and to strike trade deals in the national interest and for the common good. It is as straightforward as that. Anything that provides an impediment to that desire is not only unacceptable but directly contradicts the will of the people. This sovereign Parliament’s mission—its duty—is to embody the will of the people, to respect it and to deliver on it. I am afraid the amendments before us would impede that process, whether that is their intent or not. I will be generous and make it clear that I am not alleging that that is their intent, but it would certainly be their effect.

Perhaps saddest of all are the amendments in the group tabled in the name of the official Opposition. I see sat at the Dispatch Box the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), an old friend, looking as sorrowful as I am when I have to make that charge. The official Opposition is a Unionist party, yet it is clear from the amendments in their name that they have gone along with the idea that Ministers of the Crown should be required—yes, required—to seek and gain the consent of devolved Ministers before proceeding with what they believe is in the national interest. I have to say, I am disappointed about that, and it is another reason why we should vote against the amendments in the entire group and support the Bill unamended.

The shared interest of the people of Britain—the common good, as I described it—has been endangered; indeed, it has been diluted, year after year, through our relationship with the European Union, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) set out earlier in his excellent speech. Taking back control is in the people’s interest, because it will allow us to develop policies that are pertinent to that interest in every part of the United Kingdom.

The debate we are having about the Bill is to some degree rather recherché. It reminds me of the debates we have had in recent times between those who wanted to honour the people’s will, expressed in the referendum, and those who were unreconstructed remainers. Many who campaigned to stay in the European Union have accepted the result and gone along with it, because they believe it was a once-and-for-all decision that should be honoured, but there are those—we have seen them persistently in recent times—who did not accept it. Perhaps, tied to their kind of bourgeois, liberal, doubt-filled, guilt-ridden perspective on world affairs, they were unwilling to recognise that that is a world apart from the view of working-class Britons, as the referendum and the general election showed. That is, in large part, an explanation for why my party seized power in constituencies across the country, particularly in the midlands and north, that it had never represented before. Those people in those places have woken up to the fact that that elite had no understanding and no care for their sentiments or their interests and could not really grasp why they believed that it was right that our trade policies, our policies on migration and other matters should be determined by this sovereign Parliament speaking for those very people.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes]

I will give way one more time. As I have given way to a Scottish separatist already, I will give way to the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) as a matter of courtesy.

[Colum Eastwood]

Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question? How many seats did his party win in Northern Ireland?

[Sir John Hayes]

I am sorry, but I did not catch what the hon. Gentleman said—forgive me.

[Colum Eastwood]

The right hon. Gentleman spoke a lot about the last election and about how many seats the Conservative party won. Can I just ask him how many seats the Conservative party won in Northern Ireland?

[Sir John Hayes]

The Northern Irish political dynamic is a subject that I will not stray into, Dame Eleanor, because you would not permit me to do so.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct: I will not permit it. This is Committee stage of the Bill and not a general debate, and we will stick to the point, which he was doing admirably.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am very grateful, Dame Eleanor. Any time the hon. Gentleman wants to debate Northern Irish psephology with me over a glass of Irish whiskey, I would be happy to do so.

The essence of the debate this evening—I mean this afternoon, but I am anticipating a long debate, as you can tell—is really not about whether the devolution settlement is as the SNP would want it to be or as it actually is, which is a productive relationship, I think, between those in the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers with the United Kingdom Government. Certainly, that was how it was when I was a Minister—I had a very positive relationship with my friends in Scotland and Wales and throughout our kingdom. It is not really about that. It is about whether we believe that the Government’s hands should be tied in the negotiations as they go forward and try to strike the best possible deal with the European Union. No responsible Member of this Parliament should want to dilute the strength of our position in those negotiations in what is, inevitably, a challenging process with a very wily European Union. Whatever one thinks about the faults and frailties of the EU, and I could speak at great length about them, no one would deny that it is experienced, determined and wily in its attempts to defend the EU’s interests. We must be as united and strong as we can be in backing those who are fighting for Britain, as our Prime Minister is, has and will continue to do.

In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, Dame Eleanor —I know that you will be pleased that I am about to, although disappointed simultaneously—let me say this. It is absolutely true that, in gauging both trade policy and infrastructural investment, we need to be mindful of the particularities of the needs and wants of people across the kingdom, and of course different circumstances prevail in different parts of the UK. Good Governments and good Ministers have always done so, but, in the end, it is for the national Government—it is for the Queen’s Ministers—to make decisions on these matters, and however much that may trouble those who have moved the bulk of these amendments, I have to tell them that it is how it is and how it is going to be. We will back Britain. We will back Boris and in doing so we will get the best possible deal.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I stand here after three of the most bizarre years of constitutional contortions, when parliamentary conventions were stretched to their very limits. However, on Monday we topped them all when Government Members voted to breach the very same withdrawal agreement they voted for just months ago. We have to wonder what the point is of making law and entering international agreement when just months later the Government seek to overturn it. The same Members who voted to breach the withdrawal agreement had hailed the Prime Minister’s renegotiation of it as a masterstroke and then campaigned for it and voted to enact it.

I cannot compete with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in making the Prime Minister look like a petulant child, so I will not try, but I will try to make Members opposite think about the damage they are doing to our international standing, to their individual reputations and to the fabric of our Union, and to a Bill which could render the Good Friday agreement asunder.

I have some interest in constitutional law; I know the power it has to create new opportunities, to spread power to the people, and to have decisions made closer to where people live, but this Bill is about putting the foot down on the accelerator and driving the constitutional settlement off a cliff with the Union as its trailer. Clause 46 breaks the settled will of the devolved nations, so allow me to outline some of the problems with this Bill.

First, there is the Executive power grab: the Bill has enabling clauses that enable a Minister to make unilateral regulations. Secondly, there is the breach of existing law: the enabling clauses allow a Minister to create regulations regardless of whether those regulations are in breach of domestic and international law. Let that sink in for a second before I carry on: we are giving Ministers the power to break the law.

Clause 46 allows pork barrelling, a US practice allowing for Government spending for local projects to help a politician in their constituency. It allows pork barrelling by ministerial diktat and over the heads of devolved bodies. The Bill not only creates a situation where the Government are in breach of the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement, but it would provide the statutory basis for new regulations to be made by Ministers that are also in breach of UK and international law.

This does have recent precedent. The Coronavirus Act 2020 gave the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care similar powers, which we saw implemented this week when the new health regulations were published allegedly 28 minutes before they came into force. So 29 minutes later, a family of three meeting a family of four could have been in breach of the law, after a flick of the Secretary of State’s pen, with no warning. So, soon we will have two laws, covering coronavirus and Brexit, where Ministers can create law by diktat, and in the case of Brexit break already agreed international law. We must therefore ask whether Parliament’s only purpose will be to provide a body of personnel to fill the Executive and oversee some functions as a law-making body. This means that when it comes to devolved bodies having to make spending and funding decisions, clause 46 will take it over their heads, and they will be denuded of their powers.

Far from bringing sovereignty to our shores, this Government are stripping our sovereign Parliament of its powers piece by piece, and doing the same to the devolved bodies. The Government’s real purpose is a power grab: they are using a difficult situation as a subterfuge to hoodwink the public. The checks and balances are being eroded—[Interruption.] Yes, they are; Government Members are shaking their heads. Those who are meant to safeguard are brought into the pretence and belittle their own office: the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Lord Chancellor. The Advocate General for Scotland has at least shown proper respect for the law by resigning—or at least attempting to resign by tendering his resignation—and the Northern Ireland Secretary himself admitted this Bill breaks the law

“in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

However, a breach of the law is a breach the law, so any breaking of the law in a very specific and limited way is no defence in court: the law does not discriminate on specificity.

Even the need for this Bill has been ridiculed by more constitutional experts than I could possibly name. The Government argue that the powers are needed in case they need to rapidly implement safeguards under article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, but Professor Mark Elliott, chair of the Faculty of Law at Cambridge University, argues that clauses 42 and 43—I know that we are not debating those today; I will come to the point about those later—

“bear little relation to the matters with which Article 16 is concerned”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

It is a privilege to speak so early in the debate. I rise in support of clauses 46 and 47 and to put on the record my support for the general principles of the Bill.

The Bill is an essential building block of a successful and orderly Brexit and of a successful economy. People who say that they believe in those things need to back the Bill very strongly. People who say that they believe in getting on with Brexit should support the Bill. People who say that they support the Union and recognise the importance of a seamless internal market for the whole United Kingdom need to support the Bill.

The Labour party says that it is in favour of all those things, yet on Second Reading on Monday night, again yesterday and again today, they have found reasons not to give the Bill their support. That is very telling. Here we are in 2020 and it is just like 2017, 2018 and 2019, with the Labour party finding every excuse—using every trick in the book—to try to water down and get in the way of the successful delivery of Brexit and the successful safeguarding of the whole UK internal market.

At the heart of the Bill are borders and barriers. The Bill respects the borders that exist within our United Kingdom—it reflects the fact that we are a family of different nations within our United Kingdom—but it takes steps to avoid those borders becoming barriers to trade and prosperity for all parts of the United Kingdom. As a Unionist, I come at these issues from a position fundamentally different from that of, say, a nationalist such as the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who eloquently started this debate. We come at these issues from fundamentally different perspectives. The problem I have this afternoon is with the Labour position, because it says that it is a Unionist party and in favour of getting on with Brexit, and yet the position this afternoon suggests something different.

I am a Member of Parliament in Wales, and I worry about Welsh politics when I see the Welsh Labour party continuing its slide towards becoming a branch of the nationalist movement. We are talking this afternoon, with the clauses and amendments that are on the table, about limits to UK authority and legitimacy in all parts of the United Kingdom. It is about putting up barriers to stop this Parliament and the elected UK Government having authority and legitimacy in every part of the United Kingdom. I completely respect the position of Plaid Cymru and SNP friends, because they see the world through a fundamentally different prism.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point that is well illustrated by the official Opposition’s amendment 16, which says that any moneys spent in the devolved nations must be “subject to allocation” by those Parliaments. The preposterous idea proposed by the Labour party is that Ministers of the Crown—this Government—cannot spend money in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland without the devolved Assemblies allocating that money or choosing not to.

[Stephen Crabb]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point, but let me be absolutely clear: I believe in devolution. Other Conservative Members may have different views, but I believe in devolution. When I was Secretary of State for Wales, I was charged with translating the Silk commission into a workable plan to devolve whole suites of new powers to the Welsh Government in Cardiff Bay, and I did that happily, because I believe in seeing devolution become stronger for Wales. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) succeeded me as Welsh Secretary, he continued in that vein. We are part of a Government that have devolved powers to the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government.

However, the response from the Welsh Labour Government every step of the way—I had a running joke with the former First Minister Carwyn Jones about this in our Monday morning meetings in his office in Cardiff Bay—would be, “This is a rollback of the devolution settlement.” It does not matter what new powers we give to the Welsh Government, the response will always be, “This is a rollback. This is a power grab.”