Leaving the EU: Negotiations

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Government’s negotiations to leave the EU have not progressed to the satisfaction of the people of the UK, with polls indicating that 69 per cent of the people now believe the exit process is going badly; calls on the Government to engage in cross-party discussions with a view to establishing a government of national unity; and further believes that the people of the UK should have the final say on the UK’s relationship with the EU through a people’s vote on the deal.

It is a pleasure to be able to introduce this Liberal Democrat debate on the Government’s handling of the Brexit negotiations, the pleasure being greater because the opportunity is rather infrequent. I am aware that the House has had a pretty unremitting diet of Brexit, Brexit and more Brexit, but we judge that another helping is necessary because of the events that have taken place over the past few days. Yesterday we had an opportunity to question the Prime Minister on the Chequers agreement, but this debate gives Members an opportunity to develop their arguments in rather greater detail.

Of course, all this is being discussed in a Westminster bubble, and we will frequently be reminded that there is such a thing as the popular will. However, the popular will, as manifested in surveys of public opinion, suggests that at present about 70% of the public judge that the Government are handling the Brexit negotiations badly, and that figure has been on an increasing trend for pretty much the past year.

A lot of that disillusionment has to do with the way in which members of the Government have been conducting themselves. Over the past few days, we have had a treasure trove of quotations from senior members of the Government about what they really think about the Government’s negotiating position.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It would be seriously disrespectful and utterly counter productive to have another referendum. Talking about quotations, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with himself?

[Sir Vince Cable]

I am perfectly happy to respect the referendum that we have had, but it is utterly respectful, and quite common practice in many countries, to have a confirmatory referendum when a Government have produced a deal. That is good constitutional practice and good politics, and Liberal Democrat Members argue for it strongly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

“I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken. Whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%, when the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you do not.”

Those are not my words but the words of the noble Lord Ashdown on the evening of the referendum. This motion calls for a second referendum, but I believe that a second referendum would be seriously disrespectful. It would be utterly counterproductive, and I will not be voting for it this evening.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to remind us of some of the really important private Members’ Bills in the history of the House. She will remember her colleague, Tom Clarke, who got two private Members’ Bills through Parliament: one on international development and another on disability. We owe a great deal of credit to Tom Clarke for what he did to ensure that those Bills were brought before Parliament. The Governments of the day were not prepared to consider those Bills, but Members of Parliament thought they were important enough to bring to the House, and to spend time and effort on getting them through. There are also really important private Members’ Bills in this Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is not here, but his Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill is really important. Again, that Bill has been stalled by this Government refusing to provide a money resolution.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of having an aversion to private Members’ Bills, but he also said that he has been here for five Parliaments. In fact, 22 private Members’ Bills were passed in the 2005 Parliament and 31 were passed in the 2010 Parliament. If we include the 2015 and 2017 Parliaments together, more than double the number of private Members’ Bills have been passed than in 2005. That is hardly an aversion to private Members’ Bills.

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think that I ever made the charge that this Government have an aversion to private Members’ Bills. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to be accusatory, I will accuse the Government of blocking Bills that they do not like. That is what we are getting to here. There are lots of Government-sponsored private Members’ Bills, a couple of which I have personally sponsored and that I want to see progress, so I am not saying that they have an aversion to them. I think that they value them as much as possible, but the system is broken just now. The current way in which we do this business is not satisfactory, and every Member of this House should be concerned about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to take part in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew). He said that he agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). If he follows my hon. Friend’s arguments exactly, he will be voting with the Government in the Lobby, so I look forward to seeing whether he agrees or not.

I have taken a keen interest in private Members’ Bills in my short time in the House. Some have accused me of taking a rather curious interest, but I blame my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), neither of whom is able to speak in the debate because of their other duties.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills promoted the NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Act 2016—Peter Pan and Wendy’s Bill—which was the first private Member’s Bill in which I participated on a Friday. I have successfully taken a presentation Bill, the Road Traffic Offenders (Surrender of Driving Licences Etc) Bill, through Second Reading and Committee, only for it to be objected to on Third Reading. Yes, there was a lone voice of objection, but it was not the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope); it was another Member. I will return to that procedure in due course.

I entirely understand the passion of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and his concern for piloting his Bill through this place. Taking legislation through the House is a difficult and treacherous business, and perhaps it should be, because surely it should not be easy to place legislation on the statute book. The one consolation of losing my private Member’s Bill was that it would not have succeeded in any event, because a general election got in the way, although of course that is rather cold comfort.

The motion does not touch on the merits of the boundary changes, but it is important that I express my view, as other hon. Members have done, because it seems beyond argument that there should be an equalisation of the number of constituents in each constituency. Doubtless there will be exceptions from the south to the north, and both my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) would argue passionately for why their constituency should be of a different size.

At the moment, for example, we have Arfon, a constituency of about 41,000, whereas North West Cambridgeshire has more than 93,000 electors. I have an electorate of 65,000, and also in my county is the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), which has an electorate of over 82,000. My other hon. Friends in Dorset have electorates ranging between 72,000 and 75,000. They may well think that I have an easy time of it and am slightly less busy than they are. I, of course, would argue that that is not the case, but there is a point about reorganising the boundaries to equalise the electorates.

Dorset, not unlike Cornwall and other areas, presents challenges. On the current iteration of the proposals, there will be a cross-county seat and we will lose a Member of Parliament. Be that as it may, I firmly believe that reorganisation and the equalisation of constituencies is beyond argument.

I have a novel point to make, which is not always possible for the last Government Back Bencher to speak. G. K. Chesterton is not quoted often enough in this place, and I think that I have time to read out the full principle of Chesterton’s fence—the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is properly understood. I will quote this section in full:

“There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it…Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”

We would be well advised to take advice from that principle in this case, in two respects. The first is in relation to private Members’ Bills when one Member objects; the second is in relation to the financial privilege afforded to the Government of the day.

I was bitterly disappointed, of course, when my Bill was objected to by just one Member—I repeat that it was not my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. When that procedure was raised in a point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), Mr Speaker rightly noted that a single voice objecting to a Bill does not count just on a Friday. He said:

“I should point out, in fairness and for accuracy, so that no one is misled, that the rule about a single objection applies similarly to any other business before the House after the moment of interruption. —[Official Report, 18 June 2018; Vol. 643, c. 50.]

He then referred to Standing Order No. 9(6).

Before we look at procedures and say, “Let’s just get rid of that,” we should first look at what their purpose is, and then at whether they serve that purpose and, if not, how we should reform them. On reform, the second area to which all this applies is the financial privilege afforded to the Government of the day, whereby there is a clear constitutional right to initiate financial resolutions. That is my novel point: Chesterton’s fence, which should be spoken about more often. Perhaps Chesterton should also be quoted more widely in such debates.

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend’s point about objections relates to my point about the proper consideration of the Bill. One reason why we should not accept the motion is because this is a constitutional matter. If we were to proceed with the Bill’s Committee stage, that should be done not upstairs, where only a relatively small number of Members are able to participate, but on the Floor of the House. However, that should not happen until we have had chance to consider the boundary review proposals.

[Michael Tomlinson]

As so often, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. What he says is right, and it links to my initial point that it should not be easy for us to make laws in this place—there should be challenge and full debate, both on Second Reading and in Committee.

We should look forward to the Boundary Commission bringing back its proposals. My right hon. Friend made another astute point when he said that that is only four sitting weeks away. We can wait that long for the commission to bring back its proposals so that they can be introduced and debated in this place. Let us then see what the consequences of that are. It would be rash and foolish—it is too soon—to support the motion today, and I will not be doing so.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), who recited G. K. Chesterton —that is a new one and I might try it tomorrow in the Public Bill Committee. I have the distinct pleasure of leading on this Bill for the Scottish National party. Although I am thoroughly enjoying our standing engagement to meet on a Wednesday morning to discuss a motion to adjourn, I really think it would be better for the Committee to move on to discuss the substance of the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan).

The House will recall that this Bill was given a Second Reading, unanimously, on 1 December 2017, after the Government’s attempts to defeat the closure motion were voted down by 229 votes to 44. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, will talk about how we have to wait only four sitting weeks, but they do not mention that this Bill passed its Second Reading last year. Frustratingly, it then took some 159 days to establish the Bill Committee, which has met on five or six occasions now. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, the job of the Bill Committee is to scrutinise the proposed legislation clause by clause, line by line and, if necessary, to scrutinise any competent amendments.

As I set out on 1 December last year, the SNP broadly supports this Bill. However, it is not a perfect Bill and I am seeking to amend it in one specific regard. We certainly welcome the relaxation of requirements so that the electorate per constituency has to be to within 7.5% of the electoral quota to preserve local representation. However, I am concerned that the Bill contains a provision in clause 1 for a fixed number of MPs for Northern Ireland but not for Scotland. I shall certainly seek to table amendments to that effect in Committee but, of course, I am currently prohibited from doing so because the Government have not granted a money resolution. That is troubling, because when he gave evidence to the Procedure Committee in 2013, the then Leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley, said:

“To my knowledge, Government has provided the money resolutions…whenever we have been asked to do so.”

A 2013 report by the Procedure Committee, of which I am a proud member, concluded:

“Government policy is not to refuse a money or ways and means resolution to a bill which has passed second reading.”

I understand that Conservative party policy is to cut the number of MPs to 600, and I am not questioning the Conservatives’ entitlement to hold that legitimate view, but we all know that there is a parliamentary majority in the House for retaining 650 MPs while committing to review what I accept are old boundaries. The current boundaries came into force when I was 11 years old and I am now 28. I do not think any of us contest the need to look at the boundaries again, but we do contest the concept of reducing the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

Trying to kill the Bill in Committee by grinding Members into submission or holding up the parliamentary process is not clever, and nor do I believe that it will actually work.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government are not trying to kill the Bill? As the Leader of the House set out clearly in her speech, we are waiting for the boundary commissions to come back in four short weeks. Thereafter, we will consider the Bill’s position. We are not trying to kill the Bill; we are waiting.

[David Linden]

No, the Government have essentially treated the Bill like the bins: they have put it outside and are waiting for it to fester. We all believe that Parliament is taking back control—that we are leaving the European Union and this is going to be a sovereign Parliament. On 1 December last year, Parliament gave the Bill its Second Reading and the House resolved that it should go into Committee. That is the issue. It is not for the Government to decide that they are just going to leave it there in some sort of political purgatory. That is the fundamental point.

[David Linden]

I fundamentally object to the number of MPs being cut from 650 to 600. My view is that we could cut 59 MPs from this Chamber by Scotland being independent, but until such a time as the people of Scotland vote for that in a democratic referendum, I believe that this House, which is taking back lots of powers from the European Union, should have MPs who are able to scrutinise the Government.

I am mindful that the terms of the motion do not allow for a rehash of last year’s Second Reading debate, and nor is it about the general principles of the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill. The motion before us seeks the leave of the House to permit the Bill Committee to move from parliamentary purgatory to legislative scrutiny. Arguably, the motion is perhaps not the sexiest that the House has ever considered, although perhaps I think it is: right hon. and hon. Members will see that it is largely procedural. I must confess that when I saw the motion on the Order Paper, my initial reaction was to lament how disappointing it is that rarely allocated Opposition slots are being taken up to unblock the logjam of Back-Bench Bills, but the reality is that the Government have caused this problem.

Now, more than ever, Westminster has become a place of limited democracy, as perhaps best exemplified by the utterly broken private Member’s Bill system. On a point of principle, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that the main way for Back-Bench MPs to introduce Bills is via a lottery or a ballot. I have more chance of winning a raffle at the Garrowhill Primary School fair than I do of being able to introduce a private Member’s Bill through the route available.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman could always do what I did and queue up for the chance to introduce a presentation Bill. He would then have the opportunity to get his own Bill on the statute, as well. Many Members from different parties have followed the procedure.

[David Linden]

The hon. Gentleman is right, but the presentation Bill that he queued to introduce under Standing Order No. 57 was defeated—it was objected to —so there was not actually a way to get it on the statute book.

I do not agree with some of the tactics deployed, when it suits them, by what some in this place have dubbed “the awkward squad”. Over the weekend, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) rightly found himself the centre of what I can only presume was much wanted public attention, after he objected to necessary English legislation introduced by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) that would stop perverts taking photos up ladies’ skirts. The hon. Member for Christchurch appears to have a long-standing, albeit selective, view that private Members’ Bills should not receive parliamentary approval. I must confess that I was somewhat surprised when the House considered the Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). During exceptionally short proceedings, the hon. Member for Christchurch did not object to the money resolution that evening, and I see that the Bill, which was 92nd in the queue for this Session, has now reached Report stage.

Perversely, Bills that have passed Second Reading on sitting Fridays but do not have the support of the Government have been kicked into the parliamentary purgatory that is Public Bill Committees. Indeed, some have not even got that far. The UK Government have failed to heed calls for reforms of the private Member’s Bill process, and now they break their own conventions and ignore the will of Parliament. The Procedure Committee issued reports calling for major changes to the process in September 2013, March 2014, September 2015, April 2016 and October 2016. I certainly hope that the Procedure Committee will hold another inquiry very soon. Their changes have largely been ignored by the Government. They have noted that the procedures

“disenfranchise Members who may wish to support a bill being promoted by a colleague and are misleading to the public and to the interest groups who seek to use it to advance legislative change”.

The problem is that this is a Government who are still acting as though they have a parliamentary majority. They do not appear to engage properly in Opposition day debates, and they certainly do not vote in the vast majority of them. If the House divides this evening, I will be very interested to see whether the Government take part. They have stuffed the Standing Committees of this House with a majority of their Members, even though they are a minority Government. They have done their level best to ensure that the Democratic Unionist party has been given £1 billion to ensure that some of their legislation gets through; and they have dealt with private Members’ Bills in a way that is exactly consistent with that approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

We have heard today from G. K. Chesterton and P. G. Wodehouse, which is of course a pleasure. Nevertheless, it is a matter of regret that we have had to hold this debate because the Government should long ago have respected the wishes of this House and proceeded to move the necessary money resolution. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) for persevering in holding the Government to account.

The Public Bill Committee, of which I am a member, has now had six sittings to try to scrutinise this important Bill, which passed its Second Reading in this Chamber by 229 to 44 votes. However, we have been unable to consider a single clause because of the highly unusual step taken by the Government to refuse to table a money resolution.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I think it is in fact better than the hon. Gentleman stated, because those were the votes on the closure motion. I believe the House voted unanimously for the Bill’s Second Reading.

[Christian Matheson]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting me, and he is absolutely right.

This has not only become a routine drain on parliamentary time and resources for everyone involved, but is deeply disrespectful to Members across the House who sent a strong message to the Government last December that they wanted the Bill to be considered in Committee. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton that it is now 200 days since that vote took place. It is vital that we uphold parliamentary sovereignty, which is why I am pleading for all Members across the House to support the motion.

We are where we are, and I pay tribute to hon. Members for their participation in the debate. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)—or, dare I say it, West Gloucestershire?—talked about the fact that his constituency might become West Gloucestershire. Of course, he would also have to be adopted by the association to be the candidate, but I am sure that it would have no problem adopting him. He mentioned the 35,000 responses to the Boundary Commission’s review. I will hazard a guess that most of those responses were complaining about how daft the review was, based on the parameters set by the Government. I will say one thing about him: he has been an assiduous attender of the Bill Committee, even when only a motion to adjourn was moved, and I pay tribute to him for being one of the few Conservative Members who has taken that procedure seriously.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, who is an old friend, told us that he has become an expert in parliamentary procedure. With that expertise, he reminded us that the convention is that the Government always table a money resolution on Second Reading.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) gave a brave speech and said that the circumstances in the world have changed. He talked about the motion setting a dangerous precedent, but I put it to him that the dangerous precedent is surely the Government ignoring the will of the House by ignoring the Second Reading vote.

The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) talked about her introduction to politics in 2009-10 and all the demands for parliamentary reform at that time. I suggest that those demands were for reform of the expenses system, which is what was causing all the difficulties around this place, not of parliamentary boundaries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) presented us with an easy solution to the problem: an early vote, so that the Government could test the will of the House on a reduction from 650 to 600 seats, which would save time and resources. He made the important point that we need to remember that we represent place as well as simply numbers.

Then we come to the G. K. Chesterton fan, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), who talked about the difficult and treacherous business of taking forward legislation. He is right that legislation should be difficult and should be tested, but if there is any treachery, dare I say it?—I hope I am not being unparliamentary—it might lie on the Government’s side of the House, with Ministers not respecting the will of the House on Second Reading.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) reflected on his experiences on the Procedure Committee and reminded us that money resolutions are always provided. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said that his constituency is 103 miles one way by 115 the other—as big as London—and that the new boundaries would make it even more impossible to manage.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who represents the constituency of her birth, talked about the history of those parishes providing a real sense of community. She reminded us that our role here is to represent the voiceless, and she spoke of the 11,000 residents of her constituency who are not on the register but nevertheless need representation. It has been an excellent debate.

Capita

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I simply fail to understand how Labour Members can say that this is dogma-driven when the last Labour Government awarded 55 PFI contracts a year and one was awarded in the last year. Some 20% of the contracts awarded to Capita were awarded by the Labour party. This is not about ideology; it is about what works. Outsourcing delivers savings, which means that we have more to invest in the public sector—more in our schools; more in our hospitals.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

May I give the Minister an opportunity to repeat and reinforce his message about small businesses and the importance of their getting more involved in the delivery of public services? Will he encourage businesses in my constituency and the wider Dorset region to bid for contracts?

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Small businesses should be going out there and bidding for Government contracts. I know that his constituency has much expertise in the aerospace sector, and I announced further measures over Easter to help such small businesses. I wrote to all our strategic suppliers asking that they adhere to the prompt payment code, and I am requiring suppliers on large contracts to provide their subcontracting data. They can be under no illusion that the Government are watching closely to ensure that in terms of contracts from government itself and subcontracting, SMEs get their fair share.

Voter ID Pilots

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

As my hon. Friend knows, it is legitimate to take a postal vote to a polling station on the day, but I understand that he has recently found unusual evidence of the extent to which that may have been happening. I know that what is in his mind is how much verification can have taken place of the high numbers of such postal votes, and I encourage him to go on trying to find out exactly what seems to have happened in his area.

As I have said throughout this afternoon’s exchanges, it is extremely important for us all to have confidence in our electoral system. That means that we must be able to test ways of improving our protection in the system, which will in turn mean that fewer people become victims of electoral crime. I record my thanks not only to the five authorities that are conducting the ID trials, but to the three that are testing ways of improving the postal and proxy voting processes.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and her commitment to combating fraud. Contrary to Labour Members’ assertions, is it not the case that this will not deter people who are entitled to vote from doing so and will not reduce turnout, but that what it will do is reduce and deter electoral fraud?

[Chloe Smith]

That is precisely what the pilots are intended to do. They are intended to test, in a proportionate and reasonable way, practices that already take place throughout the world and have continued to support thriving and flourishing democracies.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Shale gas extraction could be a very important part of ensuring energy security in this country, and I am sure all the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and the constituents of others represented in this House will want to ensure the Government are doing everything they can to make sure we maintain our energy security and we do not see the lights being turned off.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Q15. It is obvious that there will be concern about the draft from the EU of the withdrawal agreement. Can the Prime Minister assure me that when she responds, she will have uppermost in her mind the importance of both preserving and strengthening the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. First, if I can reiterate the point that I made in response to an earlier question, we are very clear that we want to ensure that we are able to see that trading and that movement between all parts of the United Kingdom—that common single market within the United Kingdom that all parts of the United Kingdom benefit from. We are committed to protecting and enhancing our precious Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The devolved Administrations should be fully engaged in preparations for the UK’s exit. They are—discussions have been taken from them—and as I said earlier, also in response to the Westminster leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), it is our intention that the vast majority of powers returning from Brussels will start off in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, not in Whitehall. We will continue to talk to the devolved Administrations, because we also need to ensure that we maintain the single market of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

The piece of evidence that I am working on at the moment relates to a call for evidence that came back from work on how to make voting in elections more accessible for those with disabilities. It is important to note that we are talking about a range of disabilities, and not just those that may be visible. That is something I am keen to focus on in my work. Indeed, I look forward to working further with the hon. Lady on ensuring that people with any disability feel able not only to participate in elections as candidates, but crucially, to register to vote.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Is it not right that, despite the concerns raised, individual electoral registration has both increased the roll and helped to reduce fraud?

[Chloe Smith]

That is absolutely correct. According to a 2016 report from the Electoral Commission, both completeness and accuracy have risen, and we should aim to keep it that way.

Strengthening Families

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on her manifesto, on securing this debate and on her powerful speech.

My hon. Friend mentioned a new Cabinet Minister. I warmly welcome the Minister to his place, whose ears may have pricked up at the thought of a new Cabinet post—a cross-departmental role—suitable for somebody young, eloquent and forward-thinking. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will have listened intently, especially to that point.

It is hard to overstate the importance of the family or of consistent and unconditional loving support. Facts and figures can be bandied around. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was right to highlight certain facts and figures, and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton was also right to say that we must have evidence-based policy.

Each of us instinctively knows the importance of family, whether we have benefited from it ourselves or not. I grew up in a family that was not materially wealthy, but rich in love and support. As children growing up, we knew that we could make mistakes through trial and error and still have the support of a loving family. Now I have a family of my own, I know the difficulties, stresses and strains—and the sheer hard work—that it takes to hold it all together. Given that, I am delighted to support the manifesto and the debate.

In my brief contribution, I will tackle a specific aspect, which was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. An overlooked part of ensuring that families are strong is the support given to families involved in the criminal justice system. The excellent Lord Farmer review looked in detail at the impact that good family work in our prisons can have on prisoners, their families and society at large through a reduction in reoffending rates.

This is one of two statistics that I will give during my speech: for a prisoner who receives a visit from a partner or family member, the chances of reoffending are 39% lower than for a prisoner who does not have a similar visit. Support needs to be given for the benefit of the prisoner and their family. If prison is truly to be a place of reform, we cannot ignore the reality that there must be a supportive relationship to help to achieve rehabilitation. The estimated cost of reoffending is in the region of £15 billion a year, so it is essential to find new ways of rehabilitation and of supporting and cutting down those high rates of reoffending.

This is the second statistic that I will give. My hon. Friend mentioned a figure of 50%, but one study shows that 63% of prisoners’ sons go on to offend and commit crimes.

[Fiona Bruce]

Forgive me, but I obviously did not articulate myself clearly enough. Just so we are on the same page, the figure I meant to cite was 60%.

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have also seen a figure of 63%, which may even be from the same study. Access to organisations and services with proven expertise in helping families that have members inside prisons is vital for protecting children’s life chances.

The Farmer review makes a lot of sensible and achievable recommendations. To give one simple example, today is the last sitting day before recess. Many families will be considering going on holiday over half-term, and some will even pass through an airport. The prison experience for visiting families should be treated in a similar way to airport security: it should be marked by courtesy, a customer service mentality and empathy for vulnerable and older people, for parents struggling with a young family and for children themselves.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great works that volunteers do in prisons, such as Stafford Prison in my constituency, is giving support to visiting families? They welcome them with cups of tea and make the experience of visiting their relative a little easier than it could otherwise be.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I could not agree more. I could mention two local examples from Dorset and the south-west—the Footprints Project and Clean Sheet, a national organisation that operates in Dorset—that do exactly that volunteering work in prisons. We should also mention prison chaplains, who do so much in that area.

I am pleased that the Government have committed to supporting the Farmer review. I do not expect the Minister to respond to it in detail, but I look forward to the new prisons Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), grasping and tackling the subject, as I know he will, and updating us in due course.

I have two final points to make. First, greater emphasis and training should be given to prison staff, who should be encouraged to build personal relationships with prisoners and their families, and to encourage prisoners in turn to build their own relationships with families and significant others. Secondly, when considering a prisoner’s application for release on temporary licence, family ties and supportive relationships should be a consideration. It should be a priority to ensure that an offender can improve family relationships ahead of release when it is safe to do so. A linked issue is the location of our prisons; we should ensure that prisoners are located as close to home as physically possible.

Families come in all shapes and sizes, but the evidence is clear. We know instinctively the importance of the family. I ask that the Government’s good work continue and that families’ importance be recognised, even within our criminal justice system.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I call Carol Monaghan—not to wind up for the Scottish National party, but in her own right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to follow so many excellent speeches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), with whom I share an office, for all the work she has done on this issue. I also pay tribute to our former colleague David Burrowes for the tremendous work that he continues to do in this area.

I want to comment briefly on two matters that have already been raised by Members. First, my hon. Friend the Member for somewhere in Dorset—I never quite remember where—

[Michael Tomlinson]

Mid Dorset and North Poole.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson)—it is south of Watford, anyway—spoke about prisons, which are an incredibly important matter. As I mentioned in an intervention, Stafford prison is in my constituency, and I had the privilege of visiting there at some length last Friday. I saw the excellent work that prison officers do with vulnerable prisoners and their families. It was a humbling experience to see the tremendous work that goes on there and the commitment and dedication of the officers, chaplains, staff and volunteers who put so much time into that. I am sure that outcomes would be considerably worse were it not for that dedication.

I would also like to follow on from what my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West—or is it East?—(Sir Desmond Swayne) said about the need for support for military families. I have well over 2,000 serving personnel, three Signals Regiments and the Tactical Supply Wing of the Royal Air Force in my constituency. I see the commitments that they make and the pressures they face. I also see the pressures put on families, particularly in Signals, where they are often sent on fairly small missions to all parts of the globe, whether the Falklands or the middle east. The same is true of the Tactical Supply Wing of the RAF. I draw attention to policy 5 in “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”, which states:

“Parenting and relationship support should be made readily available for military families. Life in the Forces holds advantages for families”—

the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) questioned that, which I can understand—

“but it can also impose unique and significant pressures.”

I welcome that policy and urge the Government to implement it.

I want to concentrate on mental health, which is increasingly spoken about in Parliament, which I welcome. The subject is sensitive to most in the House, given the prevalence of mental health problems in many families. According to the charity YoungMinds, one in 10 children has a diagnosable mental health disorder—that equates to three children in every classroom—and that statistic increases to one in five for young adults. That is a profound hardship for individuals and their loved ones. Due to its significant adverse effects on income, wages, employment and social mobility, poor child mental health has been calculated as having a lifetime cost in lost income of as much as £388,000, and that is just the monetary cost—we also have the more significant social and personal costs.

The Prime Minister has recognised that inadequate treatment for those suffering from mental health problems in Britain amounts to a

“burning injustice…that demands a new approach from government and society as a whole.”

Given that 50% of all mental health problems manifest by the age of 14 and that 75% manifest by age 18, logic and evidence point to family circumstances being a hugely significant factor. That is why I wish to commend my hon. Friend for Congleton on securing this debate, which enables me to speak about a subject that needs more attention: the role that families play in a child’s mental health. I wish to make it clear that mental health can impact the most loving family, as well as the most challenged family. However, as ever in social policy, we need to follow the evidence and take appropriate action.

[Ms Karen Buck in the Chair]

The Early Intervention Foundation review commissioned by the Government concluded that inter-parental relationships are instrumental in determining a child’s mental health. Children of separated parents or in challenged families have been shown to be 50% more likely to fail at school, have low self-esteem, struggle with peer relationships and have behavioural difficulties, anxiety or depression. That is supported by a review of 18 international studies that was published this year by the University of Sussex. It found that family breakdown is consistently linked to higher risks of depression in children. I draw attention to the fact that those are international studies; they are not just about the United Kingdom.

New research recently published by the Marriage Foundation uses the latest data on 14-year-old children in the millennium cohort study. It found that family breakdown is a major driver of teenage mental health problems. It is in stable homes with nurturing relationships that children have the best chance to thrive. Sadly, that is a far cry from many children’s experience. The recent Department for Work and Pensions report, “Improving Lives: Helping Workless Families”, found that by the age of 16, 47% of all children do not live with both birth parents. That statistic has been referred to before, but it is well worth repeating. Indeed, between one and three in 10 children live in families where their parents say they are in unhappy relationships. The Early Intervention Foundation recently concluded that

“childhood mental health...may be improved by working to promote the quality of the inter-parental relationship.”

Couple therapists who work for Tavistock Relationships have witnessed the reality of that at first hand. They reported that the mental health difficulties of children of couples with relationship problems were significantly alleviated if they engaged in couples therapy. That is a blind spot in current health care provision.

A child interviewed by Common Room Consulting described their experience of therapy. They said:

“The main focus was on me, and changing my behaviours and thinking patterns, not on the causes. I tried to tell people that home wasn’t good on a few occasions, but they didn’t seem to have the time or the space for these discussions to happen...the focus was on the impact of my behaviour on my parents and sisters.”

A couples therapist based in a children and young people’s mental health team stated that she was unaware of any other multidisciplinary teams nationally that provided the service as part of their approach to tackling children’s mental health. That needs to change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention.

The families manifesto also states that the drug strategy board should look at how parents can be supported to prevent addiction to drugs and alcohol from developing in young people. Obviously, we all want to support people going through such difficult experiences in their families, but the families listening to this debate who live in areas where drug crime is a real problem will be distraught at the Government’s failure to provide adequate funding for our police and will be acutely aware of the loss of the 21,000 police officers and 6,000 police community support officers since 2010.

[Michael Tomlinson]

It is very depressing to see the hon. Lady in splendid isolation reading out a party political rant. It is tempting to step up to intervene. She and her party voted but yesterday against a £450 million increase for our police officers and yet she continues to read that out.

[Margaret Greenwood]

Our position was that the money the Government are providing is not nearly enough. That was the point. [Interruption.] I am very unhappy that the hon. Gentleman is not even looking at me when I respond to his point. He says I am making a party political point, but I can tell him that I can think of areas in my constituency where people are really frightened about drug problems. They speak to me about the loss of police and police community support officers. It is a real issue. The lack of funding to police forces is devastating. We have lost 1,000 police officers since 2010 on Merseyside; that is 1,000 police officers no longer on the beat. I think I am entitled to make the point that the Government should fund the police properly if we are to support families in supporting people at risk of coming into touch with drugs and alcohol—and particularly with drugs and illegal substances. Families in the areas concerned desperately want the police to be properly funded so that they can feel safe in their own homes.

Reductions in local authority funding have also meant that youth services, for example, have been decimated. Parents in my constituency say to me, “Where are the youth services? We need them. Why are the Government cutting funding for those things?” It is important that there are activities for young people to do.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I understand the focus on family life, but it is acceptable to look at the effect of policing cuts. When constituents are going to their MP and pleading for support, saying they do not feel safe, we have a duty to reflect that. It is important.

The Labour Government took hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, but research published late last year by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the number of people living in poverty will soar to a record 5.2 million over the next five years because the Government’s social security cuts are biting deepest on households with young families. As the IFS said, the benefit freeze, the introduction of universal credit, and cuts to tax credits will mean a surge in child poverty, and the steepest increases will be in the most deprived parts of the country. That will have an impact on family cohesion and relationships.

Universal credit was introduced to smooth the transition into work and lift people out of poverty, but since 2010 work allowances and the taper rate have been cut. Today the Work and Pensions Committee report on universal credit has highlighted the Government’s inability to provide evidence that universal credit will enable more people to find work. I am talking about the full range of people: not just single unemployed people, but disabled people, single parents, carers and the self-employed, who are now claiming universal credit as the full service is rolled out. Ministers continually refer to statistics that cover only single unemployed claimants with no children; that is a strange focus if the Government are committed to supporting families.

It is important to consider the impact of the cuts to work allowances, because so many people on low incomes are in insecure work. Low pay and zero-hours contracts have an impact on the family life of hundreds of thousands of people. They make life extremely difficult for parents who have to pick up children from school or childcare, or arrange childcare in the first place. It is difficult to do that if someone is on a zero-hours contract. It is easy to highlight the importance of active fatherhood in a child’s life, as the manifesto does, but research by the TUC, published last summer, showed clearly that some employers seek to prevent fathers and mothers from taking time off for family emergencies.

I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Congleton claim that family breakdown is the biggest social problem affecting the nation today. I would suggest that there are a number of contenders for that. My personal view is that the Government’s privatisation of the national health service will lead to the biggest social crisis in this country within memory. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may groan or laugh, but that is the case. There is so much evidence. I wish that they would look at what is happening in their constituencies, to verify it. The Government are also failing to tackle the housing crisis. Young people in their 20s and 30s are reluctant to start their own families, because they cannot find anywhere to live, and still live with their parents. In addition there is the Government’s failure to tackle the scourge of low pay and insecure work.

To conclude, there have been some sensible suggestions in the debate, which I welcome, but there is a danger, in focusing on couple relationships, of ignoring the reality that there are many different types of family—and Government policy must reflect that.

[Michael Tomlinson]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Margaret Greenwood]

No. I have given way plenty, thank you.

The manifesto has some important threads to it, but in some places it reads like some sort of fairy tale, ignoring the impact of Government policy since 2010 and the way it has made life so much harder for many families, especially those on low incomes.

European Council

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that just emphasises how the deal we are working towards is going to be to the benefit of the EU as well as the UK.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. In contrast to Scottish National party Members, I also warmly welcome her comments on and commitment to EU citizens, her commitment to putting people first and her open letter last week. I urge her to continue that work, because this issue is important not only to EU citizens but to UK citizens who live and work in the EU.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was clear from the start that we needed to make that one of the early agreements we came to. It was part of the first stage of the negotiations and, as I say, we are within touching distance of a deal. It is important not just to EU citizens here but to UK citizens who have made their home elsewhere in the European Union.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, electoral policy in Northern Ireland is dealt with by the Northern Ireland Office, but the Cabinet Office is working closely on how individual electoral registration can be introduced in Northern Ireland. I will refer the hon. Gentleman’s point to the Northern Ireland Office, but proof of identity has been required in polling stations in Northern Ireland since 1985, and the Labour Government introduced photo ID in 2003. Northern Ireland has led the way when it comes to ensuring that we can crack down on electoral fraud.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

4. What steps the Government are taking to tackle electoral fraud.

[The First Secretary of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Damian Green)]

We are committed to providing a clear and secure democracy. Following our manifesto commitment, we are working with four local authorities to pilot voter ID in polling stations, and working with Tower Hamlets to pilot changes in postal voting in 2018, as part of a developing programme to strengthen electoral integrity.

[Michael Tomlinson]

I welcome the fact that the Government are piloting voter ID. I had the privilege of being in Iraqi Kurdistan for the recent independence referendum, when voter ID was used with apparently few difficulties. Which local authority areas are involved in the Government’s pilot, and how can the system be rolled out to further authorities in due course?

[Damian Green]

I am pleased to be able to confirm that the four local authorities that have agreed to take part in the voter ID pilot are Woking, Gosport, Bromley and Watford; and, as I have said, Tower Hamlets is involved in the postal vote pilot. We had an agreement with Slough as well, but at the last minute Labour councillors voted against joining the pilot, against the advice of their own officials. As we have heard this morning, the Labour party does not seem to take electoral fraud very seriously.

UK Plans for Leaving the EU

Michael Tomlinson Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are always happy to look at any contributions made to the debate around the negotiations, but I repeat that the European Union has been very clear about the indivisibility of the four pillars. If we want to be a full member of the single market and a full member of the customs union, it means maintaining free movement and the overall jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is, effectively, not leaving the European Union. The British people voted to leave the European Union.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly her comments about EU citizens and, equally importantly, UK citizens living and working in the EU. She is right that the ball is very much in the EU’s court, but will she ensure that the issue remains front and centre and is resolved as quickly as possible?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that confirmation and reassurance. We said we wanted this issue to be looked at from an early stage and it has been. Significant progress has been made and I hope that the negotiators will be able to clear up the remaining issues between us in relation to citizens’ rights so that we can give citizens that absolute certainty.