Investigation of Veterans

Debate between John Penrose and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 16th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I certainly did not want to imply that we are countenancing being leisurely about this. This situation has been wrong for many years. The only reason for not announcing something tomorrow—or, indeed, today or yesterday—is simply that we need to ensure that we have put all the answers from the consultation out and in front of the House, so people have a chance to work through the details and ask, “All right, what does this mean in practice then?” We need to move as fast as we can, but it has to be as fast as we can in a way that is consistent with forging a consensus in Northern Ireland. We have to ensure that whatever answer we come up with sticks, survives and works for both sides of the community, otherwise it will come unravelled in the fullness of time and we will have failed to protect our veterans from the kind of problems that we have all heard about and that I think everyone here agrees are absolutely unacceptable.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) is quite right when he says that this question really ought to be answered by the Secretary of State for Defence, because it is her intervention that has left the Government with a policy that is totally lacking in any coherence.

Quite apart from the inconsistencies that others have highlighted, we are now, we understand from the Secretary of State for Defence, to disapply the European convention on human rights in this area. Is that Government policy that she speaks of, and if so, where does the Minister, as a Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office, think that leaves the Good Friday agreement?

[John Penrose]

Let me first address the right hon. Gentleman’s point about whether this is a matter for the Ministry of Defence or the Northern Ireland Office. He is of course right that the Ministry of Defence has a major, major stake in getting this right. As he would expect—as everybody would expect—the Secretary of State for Defence wants to make sure that this issue is dealt with as promptly as possible. The Ministry of Defence is not the only Department to have a stake, because clearly there are former police officers in Northern Ireland—members of the PSNI—who could also be vulnerable to such predatory legal attack, or whatever, and we need to make sure that they are properly dealt with too. He is right that the MOD is a vital part, but it is not all of it, and that is why the issue goes broader than just veterans of Her Majesty’s armed forces.

On human rights, as I said earlier, all we have to go on at the moment are the press reports and the outlines of the Secretary of State for Defence’s proposals. I did not see those as having—and I do not think she meant them to have—anything to do with contradicting human rights. It is clear that anything we come up with, if it is to be legally robust, has to be compliant with article 2 in human rights terms, because if we do not have a process that is compliant with article 2, we will have failed to protect our veterans, whether they are former members of the armed forces or former members of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. If we fail to protect them from proper legal challenge because we have designed a process that is not compliant with article 2, we will have failed in our duty and failed to deliver what everybody here, of all parties, wishes to achieve.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between John Penrose and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman is right; the referendum will affect all of us, but the argument that he is advancing applies equally to 15-year-olds and 14-year-olds, and to 55-year-olds and 64-year-olds. So he is right, but I am not sure there is a compelling argument for reducing the age just to 16.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

rose—

[John Penrose]

I will give way once more, then I must make progress.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. May I caution him, though, against invoking the somewhat patrician instincts of the Labour Government with regard to the use of sunbeds as a reason for denying 16-year-olds the vote now? He has given us the full list of links, but surely the one link that matters because it comes to the heart of what it is to be represented in this place is that at 16 people pay their taxes.

[John Penrose]

That idea has a long and distinguished history. People were throwing tea into the harbour in Boston, saying “No taxation without representation” a long time ago. However, the argument has grown weaker over time for a number of reasons. First, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who now pay income tax, though not zero, is a great deal lower than it used to be, partly at least because this Government and the previous one raised the threshold for income tax and also raised the school and training leaving age, so the number of people involved in paying income tax is significantly lower than it used to be. Secondly, there are now many more indirect taxes, so any six-year-old who buys whatever it may be will be paying VAT, among other things. Therefore the advent of indirect taxes rather weakens the logical foundations of that argument, one which I used to cleave to myself. I found myself in slightly uncomfortable positions as a result, because I realised that it was an eroded position.

Even if we were convinced that lowering the voting age was the right thing to do, this Bill would not be the place to do it, for two reasons. First, changing the voting age should not be applied to a single vote, even—or perhaps especially—if it is as important as this referendum. It is something that should be considered for all elections collectively and in the round, not piecemeal on an ad hoc case-by-case basis. Given the understandable sensitivity surrounding the EU referendum, making such a fundamental change to the franchise for this vote alone would inevitably and perhaps justifiably lead to accusations of trying to fix the franchise in favour of either the “remain” or the “leave” campaign. That is why we have chosen to stick with the tried and tested proven general election franchise. If it is good enough for choosing the Government of this country, surely it is good enough for the referendum too, and we should not jiggle around with it for a one-off tactical advantage either way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Penrose]

Once more, then I will stop and let others have a go.

[Mr Carmichael]

This is probably the most novel aspect of our debate today. It is, of course, for the Speaker to certify whether financial privilege is invoked or not, but it is for the Government to decide whether they are to take advantage of that. The Government did not take advantage of that in relation to the 2014 Wales Bill for exactly the same issue. What is different now?

[John Penrose]

I think I have just addressed that point. We cannot waive privilege and disagree with the amendment for other reasons. We therefore need to engage financial privilege, but I am taking the opportunity of this speech and this debate to make sure that those other issues are given an airing as well. I hasten to add that there is nothing new in this. There is a long-established precedent in this House. I shall leave it to the procedural experts to lecture us all on the historical antecedents of financial privilege. We are not creating any sort of unusual precedent here.

I have not sought to repeat or rebut every argument. As I said, the subject has been debated many times in the Chamber already. I have, I hope, given everybody a taste of the issues and stated the Government’s position. The House has expressed its view on this matter many times, and I ask us all to repeat that once more.