Covid-19 Update

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Without in any way accepting the premises of the hon. Member’s questions, I can certainly confirm that it will be a full public inquiry under the 2005 Act, and there will be full powers to compel evidence.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on his statement and on his announcement that step 3 of our road map to recovery will go ahead as scheduled on 17 May. Like many across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, I have enjoyed a pint at the Millrace in Milton and another at the Bulls Head in Burslem, as pubs were able to open outdoors under step 2 of our road map. However, not every publican has been able to open their doors yet, and both they and excellent local brewers such as Titanic Brewery in Burslem have faced a very hard time throughout this pandemic. Will my right hon. Friend create a new draught beer duty rate to provide targeted support for breweries and pubs throughout the UK, which is only possible since leaving the European Union, recognising the important role that pubs play in our local communities?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out another of the advantages of leaving the European Union. Although we have consulted publicans and brewers on the potential for a differential duty rate on draught beer, we are awaiting the responses from the Treasury, and the Treasury will reply in due course.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

On behalf of the residents of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, I wish to convey my heartfelt condolences to Her Majesty the Queen and the entire royal family, who have lost a loving husband, father, grandfather and great-grandfather. Throughout His Royal Highness’ long life, Prince Philip was a shining light, with a stiff upper lip and a sense of humour no more obviously displayed than when he allegedly referred to Stoke-on-Trent as “ghastly” in 1997. In 1978, His Royal Highness opened the YMCA headquarters in Hanley—a national award-winning YMCA now that has the fire, passion and ideas to challenge the status quo, very much in His Royal Highness’ style.

As an ex-teacher and someone who, rather inadvertently, failed to do the Duke of Edinburgh Award but who joined many a school trip with students taking part in it, I pay tribute to the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, which gave students, particularly in urban areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to learn new skills, take part in teamwork and build the self-confidence they need to have a better future. However, for all His Royal Highness’ great achievements, his greatest will be his selfless duty, devotion and love for Her Majesty. It is a lesson that many of us can learn from. May he rest in peace. God save the Queen.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I will in just a minute. The truth is this: there will be an avalanche of checks, bureaucracy and red tape for British businesses. Every business I have spoken to knows this; every business any Member has spoken to knows this. That is what they are talking about. It is there in black and white in the treaty.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the Opposition give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will in one minute. There will be checks for farmers, for our manufacturers, for customs, on rules of origin, VAT, safety and security, plant and animal health, and much more. Many British exporters will have to go through two regulatory processes to sell to existing clients in the EU. To keep tariff-free trade, businesses will have to prove that enough of their parts come from the EU or the UK. So there will be significant and permanent burdens on British businesses. It is somewhat ironic that for years the Conservative party has railed against EU bureaucracy, but this treaty imposes far more red tape on British businesses than there is at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke absolutely believe in this Prime Minister, hence why I am fortunate to be in my place on these Conservative Benches. Does my hon. Friend agree that this deal delivers on not only Vote Leave’s pledges, but the pledges made in 2019 Conservative manifesto?

[Conor Burns]

I absolutely agree. Knowing the Prime Minister as I do, I can say that he will not let down my hon. Friend’s constituents. My hon. Friend will be rightly rewarded at the next general election for how the Prime Minister will deliver for him and his constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Bore da, Mr Speaker, and to the hon. Gentleman. It is the case that the UK Government have been clear about the importance of maintaining sovereignty, the right to diverge and full control over our waters. We shall not be ambiguous about that, but we are determined, if we can, to reach a free trade agreement. Our negotiators are working hard to that end.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and colleagues across the Chamber are aware that the world’s finest ceramics are made in the potteries of Stoke-on-Trent, and that the ceramics industry, both traditional and advanced ceramics, are integral to the UK’s economy. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whether the outcome of the talks with the EU is Canada or Australia, Stoke-on-Trent companies such as Churchill China and Steelite will continue to remain world leaders in manufacturing and production?

[Michael Gove]

Not just the company my hon. Friend mentions, but Royal Doulton, Wedgwood, Spode and of course more recently Emma Bridgewater. Those are names that are known across the globe. They shine a light on the brilliant ceramics sector that is housed in Stoke-on-Trent and the potteries towns. We will ensure in the future, as we leave the European Union, that across the world people have the chance to dine off and to drink from the first-class products made in his and his neighbours’ constituencies.

Covid-19: Winter Plan

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think I might quarrel with the hon. Member’s description of a broken land and a broken people, because I think actually the people of this country have shown fantastic resilience. I do not think that they or we are broken; I think that we are going to come back very strongly. I also think that churches play an enormous part in that, and I am glad that they are going to be reopening from next week.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that while Stoke-on-Trent may be a small city, it is a mighty one. Having removed itself from Government attention over rising coronavirus figures twice this year, the city is once again showing its hardy spirit in pushing down case rates during the second wave by 100 per 100,000 cases in the last week. Will my right hon. Friend consider the approach made today by Stoke-on-Trent City Council leader, Councillor Abi Brown, of placing Stoke-on-Trent into tier 2 as we exit this national lockdown?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is so right in the way he champions Stoke and the community spirit of the people of Stoke. I cannot say which tier, alas, they will go into. It will depend on all the things that I have discussed, and the figures are not easy. The incidence of the virus is still high, and we have to face that grim, grim truth, I am afraid. But the hope is there that, with mass testing—and the people of Stoke can do this if they choose: you can drive down the incidence, you can drive down the R, you can find the asymptomatic positives and you can reduce the virus in your area. If they can reduce the virus in their area, as Liverpool has done, by about two thirds, partly thanks to the participation of the people of Liverpool in mass testing, then they have the prospect of removing those restrictions as well. So “Get a test to kick covid out” is what I would also say to the people of Stoke, in addition to thanking them and my hon. Friend for all their hard work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of civil service jobs based outside London.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of civil service jobs based outside London.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)]

We want to make the administration of government much less London-centric and more reflective of the country as a whole, with an ambition to relocate 22,000 civil service roles out of the capital and into the regions and nations of the UK by the end of this decade. Our Places for Growth programme is an incredibly exciting one, working with Departments and public bodies to establish a series of hub locations that we hope will deliver on our levelling-up ambitions, strengthen the Union, reduce estate costs, support our industrial strategy, and take advantage of untapped talent and expertise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It is vital that we have confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions. That is why the Electoral Commission and other bodies play such an important role. Of course, it is also important that people can have confidence in the promises made by politicians, and it was the case in 2014 that Nicola Sturgeon and leading Scottish nationalists made the point that that referendum was for a generation. Just six years later, I do not believe a generation has passed.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]]

Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke are rich with industrial heritage, from the pits of Chatterley Whitfield to the pots of Middleport Pottery. We are also a UK-leading city, having installed a full-fibre network that will connect every home and business to gigabit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are the perfect location for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s new hub?

[Michael Gove]

I cannot think of anywhere better to put DCMS Ministers than Stoke-on-Trent: a jewel in the heart of Staffordshire, home to industrial innovation for generations and boasting three of the finest Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

Covid-19

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The whole objective of trying to prevent another boom in coronavirus suffering—a boom in coronavirus patients—is to protect the NHS and allow scheduled surgery of the kind the hon. Gentleman describes to continue.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Unfortunately, in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, schools such as the Excel Academy and Ormiston Horizon Academy have staff and students testing positive for coronavirus. Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns about staff and students being away from the classroom as they await testing? Does he agree that schools should be prioritised for testing to ensure that both staff and students are back in the classroom as soon as possible?

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anna McMorrin]

Let us just get this straight: this Bill is pure political opportunism from a Government so wrapped up in their own fiction that they have forgotten what reality looks like. As it stands, this Bill will set in motion the biggest re-centralisation of power from Wales to Whitehall in over two decades.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Give us an example.

[Anna McMorrin]

I will give the hon. Gentleman an example.

Those powers have been used to improve the livelihoods of the Welsh people, our economy, our health and education system, local businesses and agriculture—the very fabric of Welsh life. Instead, this Government want to hollow out the rights of the Senedd—those rights and powers that protect Wales and all the standards and services that we cherish from the worst effects of this incompetent UK Government. Let us make no mistake: this is about political opportunism. It is about seeking to take spending powers from a Government who already have those powers and can already make those decisions. Is this not simply because the Conservatives do not like the Government that the people of Wales have voted for and are seeking to take away their democratic rights? This Bill dangles the prospect of increased financial assistance, but where is the detail? We keep hearing the words “levelling up”, but who here can point to the evidence of that so-called levelling up? This Government are a wrecking ball, and I am not prepared to accept this wrecking Bill to smash and grab devolved powers—to rob the Welsh people of a way of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

The hon. Lady asked for an example of levelling up. The town of Kidsgrove got a £25 million deal through the towns fund. That is a town that had not seen any investment in decades, after 70 years of Labour rule. There is an example, right there, of levelling up.

[Anna McMorrin]

I will gladly come to the examples of where the Welsh people are being robbed. This UK Government are offering to provide money to Wales to improve infrastructure, but that is an illusion. They have failed systematically to support electrification of the railways, for example, and renewable energy schemes. I see the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) in his place. Time and again, he sat in front of the Welsh Affairs Committee and failed to provide an answer for the lack of support for projects across Wales.

Time and again, this Government have come up short. They block and they deflect; they buy themselves time with controversy to mask their inability to govern, to provide or to collaborate. That is what this Bill should be about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to support the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who I must say made an impressive opening speech on Monday. Those of us elected in 2015 are old enough to remember when we were told we would get chaos if he was elected Prime Minister. As I look at the current Government, the word “chaos” feels like an understatement.

The seat I represent is in west London, but I know that many of my constituents care deeply about the Union of the four nations of the UK, the UK’s reputation and the credibility of the UK and the rule of law. The debate is not about whether people support or oppose Brexit. Saying that, I voted against triggering article 50 back in 2017, because I knew that it would take time to sort out the nuts and bolts of Brexit and that we had a long way to go, but we now have only three months until we leave the EU single market. As we can see from the mess in this Bill, there is still an awful long way to go. That hits business, it hits people and it hits our nations.

The debate is, however, about how our Government approach devolution and our future relations with the devolved nations, as well as our current and future trade partners. That approach is, in my view, deeply flawed. The Bill is an act of self-destruction in the middle of a destructive pandemic. In the clauses we are discussing today, we see powers and money pulled away from the devolved nations while we are all caught up in a race to the bottom on standards.

The Government’s White Paper claims that they will legislate in a way that “respects the devolution settlement”. However, as many have already said in the debate, the Bill does the exact opposite. With due respect to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), I am sorry—I disagree. The Bill leads to a significant recentralisation of power away from the devolved Administrations and back to Whitehall, undermining so many of the very many benefits and the core principles of devolution.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am going to try asking this question, as a number of my hon. Friends have. Which specific powers that the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government already have are being completely taken away? Clause 47 says “to provide financial assistance”. I do not understand how “assistance” means completely taking power away. “Assistance” means to assist.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I am happy to respond to the hon. Member. Clause 46 specifically says:

“A Minister of the Crown may, out of money provided by Parliament, provide financial assistance to any person… or in connection with, any of the following purposes”.

And so it goes on. The power is all in a Minister. That is taking power away from the devolved Governments.

We know that this is a Government who enjoy hoarding power and consistently ignore devolved government, whether it is local councils, city hall or devolved Governments. “Centralisation, centralisation, centralisation” is the mantra from this Government, and it has been since 2010.

The Bill hoards financial assistance for our devolved nations back to the centre, and I support the amendments to clause 47 in the name of Her Majesty’s Opposition. When financial assistance is provided in areas covered by a devolved Administration, we must work with the devolved Administrations. We cannot and should not see yet another power grab away from our devolved Governments.

[Jonathan Gullis]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Ruth Cadbury]

I will not, because time is short, and I have already given way once.

A central plank of our devolution settlement has been the right of devolved areas to set their own priorities, yet the Bill undermines that by giving Ministers the power to provide funding over a wide range of issues, from culture to sport and economic development. Many voters in red wall seats changed their allegiance at the election, and according to the polling, many of them did so because they felt divorced from Westminster and Whitehall. That is true of people in the devolved countries. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, they voted strongly away from this Government and also away from Brexit in the referendum.

These powers will only make people in the UK feel further divorced from decision making that affects their lives, on issues such as culture, sport and economic development. The explanatory notes to the Bill even accept that, saying that these powers

“fall within wholly or partly devolved areas”.

Members need not take my word for it. The Welsh Government have called this Bill

“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, who have voted in favour of devolution on numerous occasions.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I am delighted to participate in the debate, and I am going to do something unusual: I am going to talk about clauses 46 and 47, which most Government Members have refused to do. I will begin by saying that I support amendment 33 from the Scottish National party.

We are witnessing in this Bill a smash and grab on Scotland’s powers. Far from the much-touted “powerhouse Parliament”, we have clause 48, a clause that sees the UK Government reserving the devolved policy of state aid, and clause 47, which sees powers given to the UK Ministers in devolved areas. [Interruption.] I will say that again, because the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) obviously does not understand it—I know that because I saw him questioning people earlier. Clause 46 sees powers given to UK Ministers in devolved areas—I will speak slowly so he understands—such as infrastructure, economic development, public spending, culture, sport, education and training. The list goes on.

[Jonathan Gullis]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Patricia Gibson]

No, I will not. I was trying to educate the hon. Gentleman a wee bit. I am always happy to clear up confusion about what devolution means, because there is a clear lack of knowledge about it.

What we are seeing in this legislation is an underhand, sleekit, sleight of hand whereby Scots, who for decades have rejected the Tories, are being put in their box, with powers stripped from their Parliament—a Parliament for which the case was hard fought, and won in the teeth of vociferous Tory opposition—and taken back to Westminster. We all know that the Scottish Parliament was established for Scots to have some say in their own affairs; to allow Scotland to do things differently, instead of every single aspect of our lives being governed by a Tory Government who have won the support of few Scots and the hearts of even fewer.

After 21 years, the Tories have run out of patience with us pesky Scots and they are using legislative procedures, hellbent on bringing to heel the nation that continues to reject them. In the Bill, Scotland will now be denied the choice to use her Parliament to do things differently—to do things according to our values, according to our beliefs. The very essence of devolution is being undermined, diluted and constrained, and in the process opposition to this arrogant madness has united whole swathes of Scottish society—our people, civic society, our educational institutions, our farming communities and our trade unions.

We in Scotland rejected these measures in the Scottish Parliament last month, overwhelmingly. Tory Members do not seem to understand that for Scotland’s Parliament not to have control over its own spending priorities is an affront to the democratic will of the sovereign people of Scotland.

The fact that the plans are set out in these clauses means that democratically elected MSPs and members of the Scottish Government can be overlooked, bypassed and marginalised when it comes to spending decisions, and the Bill will jeopardise the current Barnett funding formula. For the Tories, though, it will certainly solve the problem identified by Labour’s Baron Foulkes of Cumnock, who—I paraphrase—said, “Scotland is doing things better than in England” and

“they are doing it deliberately.”

This mean-spirited, grubby, underhand, squalid, sweaty-handed power grab is an attempt to stop just that—Scotland doing things better, and doing them better deliberately. In short, the Bill grabs power from the Scottish Parliament.

In answer to the question of what powers will be lost, the Bill could even allow Westminster to interfere on devolved taxation powers, threatening schemes such as the small business bonus.

The Sewel convention says that the UK Parliament would “not normally” legislate in respect of devolved matters without the consent of the devolved Parliaments, and the devolution settlement is clear: what is not reserved is devolved. For this Tory Government to undermine the devolution settlement by refusing to recognise the correct vehicle for delivery for such programmes designed to replace EU funding, is to ride a coach and horses through it. Spending decisions on key infrastructure projects, such as social objectives, will be taken out of the hands of the Scottish Parliament and could be completely out of step with the social and public policy of Scotland’s elected Government, excluding important players in Scotland’s civic society.

What if the UK Government impose on Scotland a project that goes against the democratic wishes or priorities of the Scottish Parliament? What will happen? How will such disputes be resolved? I think we know where the power grab takes us, in answer to that question. I can barely believe the blatant insult of this UK Government trying to portray the dismantling of the powers of the Scottish Parliament as a power surge. They should get a grip of themselves. Who on earth do they think that they are fooling? Scots are not daft. We can see the bluff and the bluster and the grubby way that this Government do politics. We have waited too long for our own Parliament to see it dismantled by a party that has been rejected by Scotland again and again and, for the record, has been rejected because it simply does not understand Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

Mr Speaker, you will know that I know Lancashire very well, having lived there for 15 years myself. We recognise that every region and community will be feeling the impact of covid-19. That is why the Government have introduced unprecedented support for businesses and workers across the country to support them through this economic crisis.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

What plans he has to reform the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

What plans he has to reform the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 led to parliamentary paralysis at a critical time for our country. It is for that reason that the Government made a commitment in our manifesto and in our Queen’s Speech to take forward work to repeal it. An announcement about that legislation will be made in due course.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She is absolutely right to highlight that the paralysis of the previous Parliament, which dithered, delayed and blocked the democratic will of the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, who overwhelmingly voted for us to leave the EU, should never be seen again. What assurances can she give my constituents that this reform can be achieved quickly and with support from all parts of the House to ensure that that kind of Brexit-blocking Parliament we saw last year will not be seen again?

[Chloe Smith]

There are two points to make to my hon. Friend. The first is that repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act had cross-party support. It was in the manifestos of both the Government and the Opposition, so I hope that that gives it a good wind, but it is also the case that the policy does need to be carefully developed and well scrutinised so that we do not repeat past mistakes with an important part of our constitution.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Jonathan Gullis Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). I am very glad to be able to speak today as, unfortunately, time ran out on me on Second Reading. I congratulate the Bill Committee on all the work it has done on this Bill in the meantime.

The obvious core point is about fairness, which a number of Members have mentioned. I will not go into any great detail, because it does seem to be a point that has been broadly conceded. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) represents nearly 100,000 people when plenty of Members in this House represent fewer than half that number. That is not fair on either him or, more importantly, on his constituents, because their votes literally count half as much as those of other constituencies.

On the subject of tolerance, a 5% tolerance is a 10% band, and every seat should be within 7,000 or so people, which is a perfectly reasonable proposition. We might flatter ourselves that the identity of our constituents is formed by the constituency in which they live, but I do not think that is the case at all. Our constituents actually look to their immediate community, and perhaps even to their church hall, which, as a polling station is an element of community. I do not think that constituents are that bothered by the name of the constituency in which they happen to live. My seat of Newcastle-under-Lyme is slightly on the small side, so I understand that that will mean changes for me. It means that I will probably have to absorb some more of the Loyal and Ancient Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which I welcome. I gently point out to the Boundary Commission —if it is listening or reading Hansard—that crossing the A500 into Stoke-on-Trent will probably not go down very well in the area.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

If my hon. Friend is looking for more of the Newcastle-under-Lyme borough, could he please leave Kidsgrove and Talke alone?

[Aaron Bell]

The point of my hon. Friend and neighbour is well made.

I would also like to say how much distaste I feel when I hear these allegations of gerrymandering, which sometimes happens with these Bills. They seemed to start with the former Member for Blackburn and former Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, who described our manifesto proposals in 2010 as “gerrymandering”. I regret to say that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Committee on Standards, described this Bill as gerrymandering in a tweet in May. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Bill is quite the opposite; it levels the playing field. To call it “gerrymandering” is a slur on the Boundary Commission and the judicial process. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) said, it is a judicial process and we should have trust that it will be fair. Either they do not know the meaning of the word “gerrymandering”, or they are choosing to misrepresent what is going on, potentially for partisan gain, or potentially to scare the electorate into thinking something nefarious is going on. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am also pleased that this Bill introduces the automaticity that my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) was regrettably unable to get to in his speech.

It makes the translation of boundaries into law near automatic. It not only removes delay, but ensures integrity in the process.

--- Later in debate ---

With that, I commend the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), and I hope that the Minister will consider them.

[Jonathan Gullis]

New clause 1 is in my opinion about stopping equalisation, because through this Bill we are going to see equal, fairer boundaries. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) talked about the shires—I am not quite sure that the shires of Stoke-on-Trent exist at the moment but I look forward to seeing them being created, apparently, with the so-called gerrymandering that we are trying to do.

We talk time and again about the idea of identity. Let me tell the House about Stoke-on-Trent. We might be a city, but we are a federation of towns, from Burslem to Tunstall, to Longton, to Fenton. Even within that, when we talk about identities, in the ward of Baddeley, Milton and Norton, we have Norton Green and Norton le Moors, and if someone says to a Norton Green resident, “You are a member of Norton le Moors”, they will get accosted—as I rightly did, on the doorsteps during the last general election campaign—for misannouncing them. So even though we talk about this idea of 5% to 7.5%, we are still talking about identities that are broken down even within the wards of local councils.

As I said, the community I represent is an amalgamation of pit villages, small towns and little villages. However, I dare to cross from Stoke-on-Trent to—this is where the hon. Gentleman will be pleased—Staffordshire County Council, so I do have a small number of shires, in the guise of Kidsgrove, Talke and a small slice of Newchapel. Again, the people of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove would identify as sharing common values. Even though they are different areas with different needs, they have a proud industrial mining heritage. Therefore, new clause 1 effectively goes against this idea, giving 7.5% here and 5% there. That is not equalisation. That is against it and once we start applying the rule to one area, we think, “Do we apply the rule to this area instead?” It becomes a bit of a mess, so I have to honourably disagree with Opposition Members on new clause 1. I will, of course, be voting against it.

On new clause 3, I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on the use of the electoral roll rather than estimates. I agree that this could become a grey area. How would the estimates be calculated? How would we create the formula to make it viable in future? The electoral roll is something solid. It is something that businesses and politicians use. It is simple and we should carry on using it.

Let us not forget that this is an important time for us to update the boundaries. In Stoke-on-Trent, I represent—I say this cheekily—a larger constituency than my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). Do I get paid more for doing more work than them? They would argue that they work harder and I would not necessarily disagree on some areas. They are very good at chuntering—[Interruption.] I know, spicy. The idea that there should be a difference is not a fair one. We want to be equal. We are a proud city and every single one of us wants to represent our areas. There are areas like Abbey Hulton, where, I believe, I have 15 electorates from the ward in my constituency. I find that rather bizarre. The way the boundaries have grown over time with housing developments in my area has left us in a bit of a confusing mess. This is, therefore, a good time to update the boundaries so that the people of Stoke-on-Trent can be represented as they deserve to be, in an equal and measured way, and in an area that they notice and understand. As I say, the idea that we must go on local government boundary wards is for the past, not the future.

Finally, I will have a little pop at new clause 2. I have great love for the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). We get on incredibly well. We disagree on everything, but we have a good chat. I know he is desperate to leave this place and never ever to have to come back, but I have to remind him that we are one United Kingdom. It is therefore only right that for the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who again are my dear friends—I know the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be disappointed that I say this—we ensure there is equality and fairness across our United Kingdom. I will be voting against new clause 2 and I urge Members across the House to do so, too. I am sure that will be used on Facebook as a clip of “the English so-and-sos stopping us having what we want”. I wholeheartedly support the Government in what they are doing today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). He and I have been very good friends in this House in the short time he has been here. I agree with him that we are always better together. It is better to have the four regions together as one. That is the real United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: stronger, better together every time.

This is not the first time I have spoken on this issue and I will start by declaring, as I always do, an interest in having the most wonderful constituency in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Strangford is the most beautiful constituency it is possible to have and I am very pleased to be able to represent it. It brings a lot of communities together and we have an affiliation with each other. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned earlier, we absolutely require the 10% variation on the quota given our distinct geographical circumstances and the limitations to what changes can be made in Northern Ireland. As everyone knows, we have a land frontier with another country, so our circumstances are very different from everybody else’s.

One issue that is essential, especially in Northern Ireland with the mix of rural and urban in almost every constituency, is the notion of belonging and community. My constituency of Strangford represents the council areas of Ards and North Down, and parts of Lisburn and Castlereagh, and Newry, Mourne and Down. When I was first elected in 2010, we had a massive change in that Ballynahinch East was added to Strangford. I made a decision to make sure that they knew their MP and opened an office in Ballynahinch to underline my commitment to make them a part of Strangford when they never were before.

The office costs allowance could never fully cover another office, but I made the decision because people could not necessarily travel some 45 to 50 miles—an hour or thereabouts—to my office in Newtonards. That has been a great boost because the people of Ballynahinch now very clearly see the constituency of Strangford as it is now and as it should be. When that happened back in 2010, the southern part of Ballynahinch—the Spa area—went into South Down and the west part went into the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley. This area was slightly different from the rest of Strangford and required an office to make its MP accessible to all, and I believe that decision was the right one.

However, every time there is a tinkering with the boundaries, it becomes an issue. Although numbers are easy to understand and move around, people’s identities are less easy to move around. To me, identity is very important, and people’s kinship is worthy of consideration. That is why I am delighted that some of the early proposals did not find their way into these final measures. I understand the concerns of some Members. The Bill has rightly ring-fenced the Isle of Wight, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), in her contribution, referred to that as well. In Northern Ireland, we must take account of individual circumstances, not simply let the numbers involved in a headcount be the be all and end all.

I can remember a situation where, to put in place the ward of Carrowdore, two people had to be moved—just two people. They lived no more than 300 yards from the school where they voted, and they were moved out and had to go and vote in Carrowdore, a 20-minute journey by car down the road. That tinkering, I believe, was wrong, and I did make representations to the commission at that time. The sentiment has been embedded in my mind that where someone votes can matter, and that while moving those two on the map tidied up the numbers, it impacted on people. That must always be a consideration. I believe it is very important that people feel they are part of the constituency and part of the area.

I am thankful that after I hang up my tie and take off these worn leather shoes—it is probably a long time away, by the way, but it happens to all of us who look to be here—Strangford will remain and prosper, and I hope that remains the case for years to come. Strangford, my constituency, has been held together over these years with blood, sweat and tears, and that must be recognised and protected. The personality and the affiliation of Strangford must be considered along with the numbers for every constituency. It is not just about numbers; it is about the constituency and about the people whom we represent. What a joy it is to represent Strangford! It is my pleasure.