Ann Clwyd

Debate between John McDonnell and Beth Winter

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Beth Winter]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Again, I could not agree more.

Ann was 100% right in the stand that she made on those humanitarian issues and so many others, such as ending female genital mutilation, and she was not afraid to take unpopular positions on issues she felt very strongly about. Nicole Piche, who was co-ordinator and legal adviser to the all-party parliamentary human rights group when Ann chaired it, said:

“Although she was firmly rooted in and a staunch advocate for the Labour Party, having held a number of Shadow portfolios when Labour was in opposition, she did not hold back when she disagreed with its policies, and was happy to work cross-party to advance the many causes she espoused.”

As we all know, Ann was not afraid to speak her mind without fear or favour. Agree with her or not, whether on the Iraq war or her stance on Brexit, we all have to admire her forthrightness and her ability to keep to her beliefs.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise: I am speaking at a rally in a few minutes’ time, which Ann would have agreed with, so I will have to leave.

The one thing about Ann was that she never gave up, and if you ever crossed her, she never gave up either. I was on a Select Committee last year that was interviewing someone—I will not go into the detail of it, but it was someone she had come across in the 1980s with regard to Vietnam and Laos. She noticed that we were interviewing this individual, so she sent me a 20-page briefing on them and all the subsequent offences, crimes and so on that they had perpetrated. She was not doing it out of spite or anything like that; she was doing it as part of her campaign to expose the injustices that went on at that time and all those who were implicated in them. In some instances that annoyed people, and sometimes her persistence rubbed people up the wrong way, but for me, it made me love her even more.

[Beth Winter]

I thank my right hon. Friend—“persistence” describes Ann in many respects. I have also had the honour of speaking to her longest-standing colleague in Parliament, Lord Campbell-Savours, who referred to Ann as “Clwyd”. He said that “Clwyd was the most courageous woman I have ever met in my life. She was fiercely independent, knew her own mind and refused to be labelled. Clwyd was what I call a real radical.” He repeated the term “radical”—to him, she was the most radical person he had ever met. They were long-standing friends.

I have also spoken to lots of constituents. A local story about Ann’s forthright approach relates to her canvassing in an election. She was using a loudspeaker, which she did very often throughout the Cynon Valley. A local resident came out and started to harangue her, so in very colourful language—not unlike that used recently by the Secretary of State for Education, which I am unable to use here—Ann told him to go away. Unfortunately, she forgot that the loudspeaker was still on, so everybody got to hear Ann’s colourful language. Her language could be colourful at times, as I am sure her family would agree. Another story that I was told was of Ann comparing a Tory MP’s fur collar to a dead cat around her neck when she criticised Ann for her position on late abortions. Ann did a lot of work on abortion rights, which again is an issue that is still in the political melting pot, as women are still having to fight to decriminalise abortion.

Ann had a very deep and personal interest and involvement in health matters over many years, particularly in a personal capacity in her latter years. At one time, she sat as a member of the South Glamorgan health board alongside a Cynon Valley GP, the late Dr Alistair Wilson, who always felt that Ann wanted services to be the best possible for people. She fully supported the national health service, but with a critical eye—and, oh, did she have a critical eye.

Ann did move on the international stage, but that did not prevent her from paying attention to local issues. Like many other people, one young local person—Richard Jones, who is now a disability rights local champion—asked for help. He recalls that when he asked her for help with a school project as a schoolboy, she sent him so much information that he got top marks for it. Later, he was the constituency Labour party chair when she made her retirement speech at the constituency party, so he had known her throughout his life.

Civil Service Pay

Debate between John McDonnell and Beth Winter

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Beth Winter]

May I ask, through the Chair, whether the Minister will agree to attend the picket line to listen to the real-life experiences of so many thousands of civil service staff? As I began to say, if the Government are not going to address these issues for the people who are suffering, surely they will do so, because it is in their own interests. The overwhelming evidence shows that the current system is not efficient. It is not cost-effective and it will not address the cost of living crisis—

[John McDonnell]

Could my hon. Friend give way to the Minister so that he can respond and confirm whether he is coming to meet the PCS members next week?

[Beth Winter]

I certainly would like to give way.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

The Minister can choose to respond or not, because he has concluded his remarks. If he wants to intervene, he can, but it is entirely down to him. The hon. Member who moved the motion can continue for the last minute and then allow me to put the Question, or can talk out her own time, which will mean the Question is not put. She can make that decision. [Interruption.] Order. The right hon. Gentleman should know, as he has been here for a very, very long time. I have been very patient with him.

Elections Bill

Debate between John McDonnell and Beth Winter

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Follow that!

[Beth Winter]

How do you follow that?

In the week in which the Government intend to prorogue the House, they have voted to carry over three Bills, and this is the fifth Bill they seek to force through following repeated Government defeats in the Lords. The Government really are losing their grip, and I regret that, in response, they are seeking to grab democracy by the throat.

I wish to confine my comments to Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86, which I support. First, let me highlight the extraordinary developments regarding the clauses that affect the work of the Electoral Commission. I express my support for Lords amendments 22 and 23, which removed what were clauses 15 and 16. As others have said, those clauses gave the Government the power to establish a Government strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, and to place a duty on it to have regard to guidance issued by the Government relating to any of its functions.

3.30 pm

The Bill’s erosion of the commission’s independence gave rise to the letter signed by its chair and all but one of its board members on 21 February this year, which said:

“It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement—enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission—is inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democracy. This independence is fundamental to maintaining confidence and legitimacy in our electoral system.”

The letter went on:

“The Commission’s accountability is direct to the UK’s parliaments and should remain so, rather than being subject to government influence.”

For that reason, I urge the Government to think again about the measures.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee also wrote to the Minister only last week to strongly urge the Government to accept the amendments tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Judge that removed clauses 15 and 16, as the Committee recommended in its report. Furthermore, in lieu of any Government support for the amendments, the Committee urged the Government to consider amending the Bill

“to provide that the Electoral Commission is able to depart from the guidance set out in the Statement if it has a statutory duty to do so or if it reasonably believes it is justified in specific circumstances”.

Regrettably, the Government have not done so, which is why I support Lords amendments 22 and 23.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 86, on voter ID, in respect of which I wish to draw some parallels with the Welsh experience. Initially, the Welsh Government withheld legislative consent for the Bill because it affects Welsh elections, because there was an issue with consulting the Welsh Government and because it negatively affected devolved powers. However, the Government have since conceded on some of those concerns and it is welcome that their voter ID proposals will not now apply to Senedd or Welsh council elections.

Although the Senedd has now granted legislative consent, there are still concerns about the Bill in all sorts of respects, but specifically with regard to voter ID. The Welsh Government say that the UK Government plans for voter ID risk making voting harder. Although I welcome the fact that the provisions do not apply to Wales, the inconsistencies between UK parliamentary elections and Welsh elections will cause all sorts of confusion for electors in Wales.

I support Lords amendment 86, which was tabled by Lord Willets and adds an additional list of documents that would be accepted as a form of identification for electors, for the reasons already given. The relevant part of the Bill is discriminatory and will disenfranchise millions of people. We already have extremely low turnouts for elections—the evidence is there—which is why in Wales we are doing the opposite and looking into different methods to encourage people to turn out to vote.

I will conclude with a quote from our Counsel General, Mick Antoniw, because the Welsh Government remain opposed to the Bill, which they believe—Opposition Members share these views—

“is more about voter suppression and enabling foreign funding than enhancing electoral democracy and integrity.”