Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. It is deeply offensive. One reason why the story has not gone away is that some of the defences are even more offensive. Some Government Members—a minority, I will absolutely state—have said that teachers were up to it, nurses were up to it, and that everybody broke the rules. I did not, I am pretty sure that most people in the Chamber did not, I know that most of my constituents did not and I know that those in the caring professions, in particular, absolutely did not. In one sense, they did it gladly because we were loving our neighbour and doing the right thing by protecting people, not because of slavish obedience to authoritarianism. I am a liberal; I do not like these laws or rules, but I knew that they were necessary to protect lives. So did the Prime Minister, yet he broke them.

As I think we have a little bit of time—I will not go on for long, I promise—I want to address the issues of forgiveness that have been discussed. As a Christian, I want to reflect on those. I was deeply affected by the speech made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), and by the comments of some other Members, about the extent to which we should be seeking to forgive the Prime Minister.

I do not know how contrite the Prime Minister is. I do not know how sincere his repentance, or his apology. Only two beings know the answer to that question, and I will not make any assumption that I know it, because I am definitely not one of them. I will say this, however. I believe—and this is one of the most radical and offensive things about Christianity—that forgiveness is available for everything and for everyone. However, even forgiven sins bear consequences. My reading from The Bible last night was Luke 6:27—“Love your enemies.” I am careful not to think of Members on the other side of the House, or members of any other party, as enemies. They are sometimes a colleague and sometimes an opponent, but they are not my enemy. There are times, though, when you disagree with someone so very much—as I do with the Prime Minister on so many issues—that you can, in your mind, make them an enemy, and I need to repent of that. Am I bitter, and seeking my vengeance on the Prime Minister? No, and it would be wrong if I did.

What I think we need to remember is this: in forgiving somebody, we must not let them stain the reputation of this place and of our politics. To say sorry is one thing, but we should remember the story of Zacchaeus. As Jesus comes into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, Zacchaeus, a tax collector who has ripped off his kith and kin for many years and is a great sinner, repents—great—but then he also makes recompense. He does more than just say sorry; he gives back four times what he has taken.

I think we need to remember that accepting an apology does not mean that there is not a consequence. The Prime Minister has not borne the consequence. What does not bearing that consequence mean? It sets the bar for what is acceptable in our public life at a subterranean level. What a shocking example this is for all of us here, for all those who might follow us, and for everyone else in the country. It tells us that it is possible to do things that are not honest, and to set rules for others and choose not to follow them, because you are somehow better than the people whom you lead. That is not acceptable, and it is not right.

What is also not right is to hide behind the suffering of the people in Ukraine as an excuse not to take action now. It is fundamentally weak for some Conservative Members to say that we must wait until some indeterminate time when that suffering might be over to take the action that needs to be taken. The simple fact is that Ukraine is a reason why the Prime Minister should go, and should go now, because we are in a state of paralysis. We know that every decision he takes is coloured by his desire to survive, and affects our own position as a country. We are diverted by this ongoing soap opera, this saga, this sorry state of affairs.

The sad conclusion I have reached is that we now have a Conservative party that is too ashamed of the Prime Minister to defend him, but too weak to remove him. Today is the day when the Conservatives need to discover their backbone.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am about to call the last Back Bencher to contribute before the winding-up speeches, so I suggest that any Members of Parliament who are in their offices should make their way to the Chamber now. I call Florence Eshalomi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Yulia and her daughter Daria fled Ukraine as it was being bombed. They managed to get to Poland and applied for a visa to come to the UK on 1 April. My office has been in constant contact with the Home Office, which has advised us that the checks have been completed and the application is with the decision maker. Yulia and Daria were unable to board a flight to the UK this morning to get to safety with one of my constituents. They are now stranded. They have no food, no accommodation and no money. We have been advised by the Home Office that they should seek advice from the consulate because there is no direct flight back to the UK until next week, and no visa will be with them before Saturday. What can I do, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ensure the safety of Yulia and Daria?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and her notice of it. Clearly this is a very important matter. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what has been said, and I implore that the message gets put through to the Home Secretary in order that this can be immediately looked at.

Sanctions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Government should readily undertake that action, and I would add to that list that places in English public schools can be identified and halted very quickly.

I have been handed a list today of 105 oligarchs. I think that these names are not on the list that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon mentioned. These are wealthy businesspeople who are involved in companies of strategic importance to the Russian economy, in such things as energy, metals, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and construction. The list is of men—they are all men, I think—who have made a lot of money by robbing assets from the Russian people. That is where the money has come from and they have made their money only because they are close to the Kremlin, and they sustain their wealth only because they remain close to the Kremlin.

You will be delighted to hear that I will not read out the whole list, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I know that you think I go on a bit too long—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Never.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I will not read the list of more than 100 names, but I have picked out 10 that demonstrate not only the importance of tackling individuals, but their links to the UK. So we are complicit in this and we are facilitating it by not tackling this.

Alexander Abramov—my apologies if I mispronounce names—is the co-owner and chair of a multinational company registered and headquartered here in London, Evraz, which is a metals company. Together with his partners Roman Abramovich and Alexander Frolov, he owns a nearly 25% stake in TransContainer, which is the largest Russian container railway operator. His wealth is estimated at $6 billion.

Andrey Guryev is the majority owner and deputy chairman of PhosAgro, which is one of the world’s largest producers of fertilizers. It might well have been involved in the disaster in Lebanon—I am not alleging that, but the explosion in Lebanon arose from fertilizer that came through Russia. He has given 20% of the company to Putin’s university professor Vladimir Litvinenko, who is thought to be a proxy for Putin. He owns Witanhurst palace in London, which is valued at about £450 million, and his joint wealth with his family is estimated at $5.5 billion.

Leonid Mikhelson is the founder and chairman of natural gas producer Novatek, which is also listed on the London stock exchange. In 2017, he bought a 17% stake in petrochemical company Sibur from Putin’s reported former son-in-law, increasing his stake to 48%. His partner is Gennady Timchenko, a billionaire who is also a close friend of President Putin and whom the UK has also sanctioned. His wealth is estimated at $21 billion.

Mikhail Fridman has already been sanctioned by the EU. Fridman controls Alfa Group and LetterOne, both headquartered in Luxembourg. Fridman was investigated by the Spanish National Court between 2019 and 2021 for his role in the Zed bankruptcy. He owns £90 million of property and permanently resides in London. His worth is estimated to be $13 billion.

Vladimir Lisin is majority shareholder and chairman of NLMK Group, a leading manufacturer of steel products and responsible for one fifth of Russian steel production. NLMK is listed on the London stock exchange. Lisin also owns the railway operator First Cargo, as well as some ports and shipping companies. His estimated worth is $24 billion.

Petr Aven has been sanctioned by the EU. He is head of the largest Russian private bank, Alfa Bank. With his partners German Khan, Alexei Kuzmichev and Mikhail Fridman, Aven co-owns Alfa Group and LetterOne, both headquartered in Luxembourg. He is tipped to be the group’s direct link to Putin from his days as the Russian Minister of Foreign Economic Relations. He owns a mansion in Surrey and is a renowned art collector. His worth is estimated at $5 billion.

Suleiman Kerimov was sanctioned by the US in 2018. He gets most of his fortune from his 76% stake in Russia’s biggest gold producer, Polyus. He profited from co-investing in Russian shares together with the then First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, who was responsible for the Russian economy. The FinCEN files show that Kerimov paid £6 million to the Chernukhin family, who have been well exposed in the UK press. Kerimov’s family is worth some $10 billion.

Vladimir Potanin acquired a stake in Norilsk Nickel during Russia’s privatisation in 1995. Today, he owns just over a third of Russia’s largest nickel and palladium producer. Norilsk Nickel is also listed on the London stock exchange. Potanin also owns a pharmaceutical company, Petrovax Pharm, and a ski resort, Rosa Khutor, near Sochi. His worth is nearly $26 billion.

Yelena Baturina—sorry, she is a woman; Russia’s wealthiest, apparently—is the widow of Yury Luzhkov, who was the mayor of Moscow from 1992 to 2010. During her husband’s time as mayor, Baturina owned the construction company Inteko and cement factories, which benefited from the city’s commissions. She was the previous owner of the British property Witanhurst.

Finally—I have only chosen 10 out of the list—we have Vladimir Yakunin. He is an ex-KGB colleague of Putin. He ran state-owned monopoly Russian Railways between 2005 and 2015. He and his family extracted nearly $4 billion in assets and commissions from Russian Railways, in Navalny’s estimates. Most of those assets are now administered by his London-based son via a Luxembourg-registered investment fund. Yakunin is the founder and president of the Putin-linked World Public Forum “Dialogue of Civilisations”. We do not know, because we do not have a public register of ownership, but we think he owns two north London properties. I will undertake to send the Minister the complete list, from which I have raised only 10 examples.

Sue Gray Report

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I disagree with the hon. Member profoundly, because I do understand people’s feelings and I do understand why this is so important for people. But I must say that I think the best thing now is for the inquiry to be concluded, and in the meantime for us all to get on with the work that I think everybody wants us to do.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Marion Fellows.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I have enjoyed the exercise this afternoon. I also wanted to enjoy the Prime Minister’s answers to questions, but unfortunately he has ducked and dived, and done everything but answer questions about a party on 13 November, about whether he will put out the final report—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Just ask the question!

[Marion Fellows]

Okay, I will ask the Prime Minister one more, which has been asked already. If he gets a fine—a fixed penalty fine—from the Metropolitan police after all this is over, will he pay it himself or ask a Tory donor to pay it for him?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I can see eight people standing, and they are the last eight I will take—just to let the House know.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Section 5.1 of the ministerial code states:

“Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code”,

and finding vi. of Sue Gray’s report, which I have read, says:

“Some staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but…felt unable to do so.”

Does the Prime Minister agree that if his staff—in fact, civil servants and workers everywhere—feel afraid to raise concerns about inappropriate behaviour at work, they should contact their trade union rep, or join a trade union?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I assume that everyone standing has been here for the opening statement and throughout.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I have listened carefully to the statement, the questions and the answers, and indeed to my constituents, many of whom are devastated to hear that there may have been parties and some of whom have suffered great hardship. I am glad that the Prime Minister has come here to apologise and to take on board the recommendations, but I am concerned that this is taking time and attention from key issues. This statement alone has been going on for nearly two hours. The Prime Minister has achieved great things with Brexit and vaccines, but can he assure this House, me and my constituents that this ongoing investigation and the reorganisation of No. 10 will not take his laser-like focus away from the issues that matter to us?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I have repeated several times how sorry I am for any misjudgements that I made, and I continue to apologise for them. All I can say is that we need to get on and await the outcome of the inquiry and allow the Government to deliver on the priorities of the country, which are: to unite and level up; to continue to cut crime; and to make colossal investments across our whole country. That is what we are going to do.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for answering questions for just short of two hours.

Armed Forces Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1B.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 2B, and the Government motion to disagree.

[Leo Docherty]

The House knows that this Bill is vital: it renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, so that the armed forces can continue to operate and enforce a system of discipline, and it also fulfils our commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant into law.

On Lords amendment 1B, we have been listening to hon. Members here and in the other place. The Government recognise the fact that all Members of this House want to do the best for our armed forces and to ensure that criminal wrongdoing is robustly addressed for the sake of our forces and for the victims of crime. We are particularly mindful about the prominence that statistics have recently played in this debate. The Government have always welcomed scrutiny of our own performance and the role that parliamentarians have in performing that scrutiny. We should ensure that the statistics that we use are clear, transparent and cover the most serious offending that Parliament is concerned about. I am happy to confirm that we will therefore commit to an expansion and an improvement of our existing annual statistical update on sexual offending in the armed forces to include other serious offences.

Our bulletin in spring 2022, in addition to reporting on rape statistics, will now include granular data on cases of murder and manslaughter, and, for sexual offending, those cases involving personnel serving in the armed forces who are under 18 at the time of the offence. Furthermore, from January 2022, we will start to record separately information about domestic violence and child sexual abuse in the service justice system, so that those, too, can be reported on in our spring 2023 bulletin.

These bulletins will include information relating to police investigations, as well as court martial proceedings, meaning that all data related to the categories of serious offences referred to in the amendment of Lord Thomas of Gresford will be included. This will include: the number of reported incidents; how many cases are referred from the service police to the service prosecution authority; how many cases the service prosecution authority are able to prosecute; how many cases go to court martial; and how many cases result in a guilty verdict. We believe that this will increase the transparency of, and the confidence in, the service justice system, and we welcome this scrutiny. Greater reporting will demonstrate the good work that we are doing through this Bill, not least the establishment of the defence serious crime unit, and it is right that data is available to hold Government to account.

--- Later in debate ---

The Scottish National party will of course support the Bill, but as the Minister knows, this is a missed opportunity. Ultimately, it fails to deliver the changes required for those who serve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Could those who wish to make separate contributions stand so we know how many there are?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The debate finishes at 6.29 pm and we would like to hear from the Minister at the end, so I ask everybody to be conscious of the need to get everybody in.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I shall be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I welcome my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister’s tone. He has sought to be constructive. I appreciate that he has made a number of concessions, and I am glad the Government have done that. In particular, I welcome his tribute to the noble Lord Mackay and others. Anyone who knows anything about the law and Government does not lightly mix with James Mackay, and I am glad that has been recognised. I also welcome and endorse the comments made about the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) in this regard.

On defence justice issues, I rather agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee. There has been movement and I am glad about that, but I am still not convinced by the salami-slicing point. I cannot for the life of me see how Lords amendment 1B creates any difficulty.

My real concern—the additional point I was going to make beyond the interventions I have already made—is about the way the defence serious crimes unit will be structured. Hopefully, there will not be a large number of cases to prosecute, but those involving rape and serious sexual offences in particular will almost invariably require great sensitivity in handling the investigation and the presentation in court, both in prosecution and in defending. Inevitably, such cases—where a member of the forces is either a complainant or a victim, or perhaps both—will by their nature, very properly, engage the highest level of public interest in the broadest sense. The concern is whether a small prosecuting body will ever be able to gather the critical mass of expertise to adequately do justice in those cases, whatever the good intentions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for the constructive contributions from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts). I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Aberavon will hold the Government to account and help to mark our homework alongside us. That scrutiny is welcome.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East rejected the notion that there was a risk of salami-slicing the service justice system. He rightly paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, and I join him in that. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West suggested that there should be more women on the boards of courts martial. That is good, because that is exactly what the Defence Secretary has committed to. That is a very important commitment and he will be held to account on it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made some interesting remarks about the defence serious crime unit and made an appeal for independent expertise to be drawn into it. That is exactly what will happen. He paid a fitting tribute to Justice Shaun Lyons, who is, I entirely accept, an extremely credible voice with regard to matters of jurisprudence. However, we also have huge regard for Justice Henriques, and his support for the maintenance of concurrent jurisdiction guided our thinking in this regard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham reflected on her own inquiry. Again, I put on record our gratitude for that hugely important piece of work, which we will use as a lever to accelerate institutional change to ensure that women can thrive in military careers, given that since 2018 every single role has been open to women to serve in. She questioned the validity of increasing and expanding our reporting on data, but that will be a mechanism for holding the Government to account, and we welcome that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) asked a good question about housing. I can give him absolute confirmation that that is at the heart of the covenant provision. That is why, along with education and healthcare, it is one of the pillars of the statutory obligation in the statutory guidance. We are putting a huge injection of cash into accommodation provision not just for service families but for single servicemen and women. The highly successful Forces Help to Buy scheme has helped thousands of service personnel to buy their own homes. The Government have put more than £400 million into that. I do not need to tell the House that the military has been an engine of home ownership and social mobility for some 400 years. We look forward to maintaining that magnificent and deeply honourable tradition.

The hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) attempted to draw an analogy with the Metropolitan police. He ignored the fact, however, that our armed forces are designed to go around the world and defeat the nation’s enemies, which the Metropolitan police is not required to do.

We have listened and we will be judged by our performance, which is why we have set up an admirably transparent system for reporting on our data, and we welcome that scrutiny. We should say very clearly that we have confidence in the provisions in the Bill and in what it delivers. Ultimately, it will deliver a tangible, practical benefit for those serving and for our magnificent veteran community. It is a Bill for the armed forces; we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude and we should be very proud.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment 1B accordingly disagreed to.

Lords amendment 2B disagreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1B and 2B;

That Leo Docherty, Alan Mak, James Sunderland, Suzanne Webb, Stephen Kinnock, Liz Twist and Carol Monaghan be members of the Committee;

That Leo Docherty be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Andrea Jenkyns.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will now pause momentarily in order that people may leave the Chamber in a covid-safe manner.

Subsidy Control Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,

That the Order of 22 September 2021 (Subsidy Control Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:

Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.

Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Paul Scully.)

Armed Forces Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 3 to 50.

[Leo Docherty]

This Bill delivers for our armed forces, renews the Armed Forces Act 2006, improves the service justice system and delivers on the Government’s commitment to further enshrine the armed forces covenant into law. We therefore resist Lords amendment 1, principally because we have faith in the service justice system and the protocol that this Bill creates to ensure that serious cases involving murder, manslaughter and rape are heard in the jurisdiction—civilian or military—to which they are best suited.

The amendment seeks to introduce a presumption that these serious offences are heard in the civilian courts. Such a presumption is unnecessary. The service justice system is fair, robust and capable of dealing with all offending. Indeed, that was the conclusion of the retired High Court judge Sir Richard Henriques QC in his recent review, which came before the House in October 2021. On page 199 of his report, he fully agreed with the Government’s decision to retain unqualified concurrent jurisdiction for murder, manslaughter and rape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

I do not doubt the commendable spirit behind the noble Lord’s intention, but this is a case of unnecessary law being bad law and a potential complicating factor. For that reason, principally, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 2.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind the House that this debate finishes at 8.39 pm, so we do not have a lot of opportunity. Could Back Benchers please focus on pithy, short contributions?

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is truly an honour to be standing in front of you, Mr Deputy Speaker, in my new role as shadow Minister for the armed forces.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), who recognised the essential contribution made by our armed forces to the safety and security of our country and who played such an important role in scrutinising this legislation.

In my previous role as shadow Minister with responsibility for Afghanistan, I recently stood at the Dispatch Box to commend the courage, dedication and professionalism shown by our armed forces in the most challenging of circumstances. Two weeks ago I was pleased to pay tribute to those who served in Operation Pitting when they visited Parliament. This House, our country and the free world owe a huge debt of gratitude to those service personnel who, for 20 years, prevented terrorist attacks from being launched from Afghanistan and who secured opportunities for women and girls that would never have been possible otherwise. I thank them for their heroic service.

I look forward to engaging with the Minister. I assure him that I will support him when his Department is doing the right thing, but I will also hold him robustly to account when the Government fail to stand up for our armed forces or to act in the national interest.

As the Opposition have noted throughout its passage, this Bill is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity to tangibly improve the lives of our armed forces personnel, veterans and their families. I know they are held in the highest regard by Labour and by all on both sides of the House. For them and for all others who have served, we have a duty to make this legislation provide the very best.

Labour supports this Bill in principle, but we have consistently pressed the Government to ensure they match their lofty rhetoric with tangible action. As it stands, the Bill is a missed opportunity to deliver the laudable promises made in the armed forces covenant for all personnel, veterans and their families. That is why I am pleased that the amendments passed in the other place so closely mirror those that Labour pressed during the Bill’s Commons stages. I therefore hope the Government will take this opportunity to think again.

Lords amendment 1 would ensure that the most serious crimes, including murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse, rape and sexual assault with penetration are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK, except when the Attorney General has given consent. For too long, it has been clear that the investigation and prosecution of these crimes within the service justice system simply does not work. The latest Ministry of Defence figures show that, from 2015 to 2020, the conviction rate for rape cases tried under courts martial was just 9%, whereas the latest data available suggest that the conviction rate was 59% for cases that reached civilian courts, with considerably more cases being tried each year. More than three quarters of victims were women, and seven in 10 victims held the rank of private.

Lords amendment 1 directly addresses the treatment of women in our armed forces, which is rightly receiving public attention, and it is an issue that disproportionately affects women in the lower ranks. Until there is fairness, transparency and justice in these cases, the actions of a tiny minority will be allowed to tarnish the reputation of our world-class armed forces.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my remarks in respect of his amendment, which I will endeavour to come to after I have worked through all the clauses.

The scheme that we are proposing is the right one and I will come in a moment to why I think that that is the case when compared with other technical methods of achieving a five-year term that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of. This clause provides for a maximum parliamentary term of five years from the date that Parliament first met, so we measure five years from the date of first meeting to the Dissolution of Parliament, and that is the Government’s proposition. We think that that provides the right balance of stability, flexibility and accountability that is entailed in returning to the arrangements that allow for a general election earlier than that. On that basis, I recommend that clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

I shall speak very briefly to clause 5. It introduces the schedule to the Bill, which makes provision for the consequential amendments that are needed to ensure that other legislation operates effectively once the 2011 Act has been repealed and we return to the status quo ante. The consequential amendments primarily reverse or alter legislative amendments made by the 2011 Act. They remove references to the Act in legislation and ensure that, after the repeal of the 2011 Act, other legislation that links to it still works. For example, in repealing the 2011 Act, they reflect the fact that there will no longer be fixed-term Parliaments, so the concept of an early general election would no longer exist in law.

Clause 5 also provides that the repeal of the 2011 Act by clause 1 does not affect the amendments and repeals made by the schedule to that Act. This ensures that essential provisions are not lost. It allows us to modify changes made by the 2011 Act and ensure the smooth running of elections by retaining sensible improvements made by that Act or subsequent to that Act. I know that those are some topics that we will come back to a little later as we progress through our debate this evening.

The schedule also makes a small number of minor changes to ensure the smooth running of elections. In short, this clause is necessary to ensure that electoral law and other related parts of the statute book continue to function smoothly. As such, I recommend that clause 5 stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 is the one that we all know and love that deals with extent, early commencement and short title. It confirms that the territorial extent of the Bill is the United Kingdom, except for a very small number of amendments in the schedule where the extent is more limited. The clause ensures that the Bill has an early commencement, meaning that it comes into force on the day on which it receives Royal Assent, and it provides that the short title of the Bill will be the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2021.

That gives me an opportunity to explain that the Government have agreed with the recommendation of the Joint Committee that a Bill of constitutional significance that seeks to put in place arrangements that deliver legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process of dissolving one Parliament and calling another should be titled accordingly. The short title now reflects the purpose of the Bill and will help to ensure that it is clearly understood and that successive Parliaments are able to discern the intended effect of the legislation. I therefore propose that this clause stand part of the Bill. Mr Evans, would you like me also to make a remark about the schedule and then turn to the amendments?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

indicated assent.

[Chloe Smith]

In that case, Mr Evans, I am going to carry on until you tell me otherwise. There is an amount to get through, but I hope to do so.

The schedule provides for a number of changes to primary and secondary legislation to ensure the effective operation of the statute book when the 2011 Act is repealed. These amendments primarily reverse or alter legislative amendments made by the 2011 Act. The schedule works with clause 6. As I have explained, we want to make sure that references to the 2011 Act work elsewhere in other legislation. There are some key changes in the schedule to draw to the attention of the House.

The first is to rule 1 of schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which sets out the election timetable. The Bill amends that rule to ensure that the trigger for the election process in the case of a parliamentary general election is the Dissolution of Parliament, following the recommendation of the FTPA Joint Committee.

The second change provides additional certainty in relation to the election process. The election writ is deemed to have been received the day after the Dissolution of Parliament. This will allow returning officers to begin arrangements the day after the election writs are issued, enabling all constituencies to begin making the necessary preparations, even in the event that the physical delivery of the writ is delayed. Similar deeming amendments are included for by-elections.

The third update is to section 20 of the Representation of the People Act 1985. Under the existing legislation, in the event of the demise of the Crown after Dissolution or up to seven days before, polling day is postponed by a fortnight. The 1985 Act provides no discretion or flexibility to further alter the date of the poll. This Bill provides limited discretion for the Prime Minister to move polling day up to seven days either side of this default 14-day postponement, by proclamation on the advice of the Privy Council. This is beneficial because it ensures that enough flexibility is built into the system should such specific and unlikely circumstances ever occur. There is also flexibility to move the date set for the first meeting of Parliament in such circumstances—again, by proclamation on the advice of the Privy Council.

The last key change that I will highlight in this section is to the Recall of MPs Act 2015, which is amended to ensure that there continues to be provision to prevent or terminate recall petitions close to a general election to avoid redundant by-elections. This means that there is no requirement to trigger a recall petition if the last possible polling day for a general election, based on Parliament running its full term, is less than six months away, and a recall petition is to be terminated when Parliament is dissolved. For the reasons that I have set out, I recommend that the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

If it remains convenient to you, Mr Evans, I will now start to work my way through the amendments that have been tabled, but I remain at your disposal to return to the clauses if hon. Members would like me to respond after they have spoken to their amendments.

New clause 2 has been tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). As I understand it, it seeks to provide a role for the House of Commons in approving an early general election by simple majority vote. This would adjust the arrangements that exist under the 2011 Act by removing the two-thirds majority requirement. It would in itself be a departure from the prior constitutional norm, whereby the Prime Minister could request an early Dissolution of Parliament in order to test the view of the electorate. As we have already begun to touch on in this afternoon’s debate, the deadlock and paralysis created by the 2011 Act did rather demonstrate why a prescriptive statutory approach does not work. Instead, what we are doing in the Bill is returning to a set of widely understood constitutional conventions and practices. Those tried and tested arrangements are the right ones, and this new clause would run against the grain of those arrangements.

It is, after all, a core underlying principle that the authority of the Government and the Prime Minister, as the sovereign’s principal adviser, are derived from the ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. The 2011 Act attached confidence and the decision of the Prime Minister to call an election to statutory motions, which gave the Commons a direct say in Dissolution, but it is also possible to argue that those arrangements hindered the function of democracy by making it harder to have necessary elections. Instead, the House should indeed be able to express its view on confidence, but in a much freer manner. We do not need the prescriptive statutory approach of either the 2011 Act or, I fear, this new clause.

New clause 2(5) would require the Prime Minister to advise the sovereign on the date of the election within 30 days of the House approving a motion for an election. I would argue that this is not necessary. Under the Bill, once a general election has been called and Dissolution takes place, the election timetable in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 makes the provision for the timing of an election very clear. Again, rather than introducing prescriptive arrangements, we believe that we should return to tried and tested standards whereby it is a core principle that the Prime Minister must be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons. New measures around that concept are not needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I wanted to make this point to the Minister. Not only will the Prime Minister have full power, but some of the clauses and consequential amendments in the Bill will have a profound effect on other aspects of the constitution. It specifically amends the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020 as a consequential amendment. That Act states that a referendum in Scotland cannot be held on the same date as a UK general election, but it is not the referendum that takes precedence; it is the UK general election. So if the Scottish Government set a date for a referendum, say in May 2023, under this Bill, it would be entirely within the Prime Minister’s power to set that date for a UK general election and consequently shift the date of the referendum in Scotland. We are handing a gross power to the UK Government as a consequence of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Was that the hon. Gentleman’s speech? Shall I cross him off the list?

[Brendan O'Hara]

I do not believe it was my hon. Friend’s speech, Mr Evans, but if it was, it was a perfectly good one and I thank him for it. The points he makes are absolutely valid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

It is a great pleasure to follow so erudite and intelligible a speech from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara).

I have an experience that is very rare in my political career—a sense of complete vindication. I voted against the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in 2011, when it was brought in, and I seem to recall saying then what I hear the Minister saying from the Front Bench now: that it would not work and that it was an abominable intrusion and distortion of our constitution. I see this Bill as a welcome correction that brings our constitution back to the fundamental principle, which has existed for many years, that, with the important exception that the monarch has the right to speak his or her mind at the time the Prime Minister requests a Dissolution, and in the last resort even perhaps to decline it—although it would not be known for many years that he or she had—it should be the case that the Prime Minister can advise Her Majesty to dissolve the House. We are at last returning to sanity and, with the pardon of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to normality when it comes to the constitution.

However, I say to the Committee and the Minister that there is an issue that troubles me. It seems to me that, when we presented our manifesto to the country in 2019, we did not only promise that we would restore the balance of our constitution by repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. We presented the country then with a constitutional programme, or at least the willingness to look fundamentally at our constitution and to consider deeply whether we should restore to a more Conservative and a more traditional basis other aspects of our constitution, too.

In welcoming this Bill, therefore, I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I hope that it is not the last measure that we will introduce in the portfolio that she occupies. At the moment, I look at our offering and I see this Bill, which I fully support, I see the Elections Bill, which I also support, and I see the Judicial Review and Courts Bill. I hope we are not going to be quite so timid as to present that as our sole offering to the country. In 1997, the Labour party was elected. One thing one can say about that Government is that they came in with a coherent, radical plan for the constitution, and they then enacted it with complete ruthlessness, and with complete disregard for Opposition voices. I was in the House some years later, and I recall vividly how the Labour party steamrollered its constitutional changes, including the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, through this House with very little by way of consideration and regard for alternative voices.

We now have a majority comparable to that, and I hope that we will not squander that opportunity. There are important things that we should now be doing. I have some sympathy with the plea this afternoon by the hon. Member for Rhondda that we should be considering Prorogation. So we should. We should be considering whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller No. 2 should stand. We should be considering whether other decisions of the Supreme Court should be allowed to stand. There comes to mind, for example, the Adams case, in which Mr Gerry Adams was effectively acquitted of his convictions in 1975 because the Supreme Court held that the Carltona principle in effect did not apply to the decision then taken. That, in my view, is a matter that this House ought to be reviewing.

I say to right hon. and hon. Members and to my friends on the Government Benches that we must not regard the constitution as an area that is too complicated for us to go into. We must not accept the liberal consensus, as it is no doubt called, upon which the new Labour Government in ’97 traded. We must not accept that these things are permanent features of our constitution. They were not introduced with our consent, and we have every right, with the mandate from the people that we now have, to reconsider them.

I say to the Minister that I applaud this Bill, and I applaud her particularly. I was impressed, if I may say so, throughout the course of her presentation by how deeply competent and how completely on top of her brief she was. Thank heavens for such a Minister.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sir Geoffrey, I have given a bit of latitude, but do you intend to speak to the clauses, new clauses or amendments?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

It is stand part that I am addressing, Mr Evans.

This Bill should warmly commend itself to those on both sides of the Committee. My only caution—my only plea—is: let this not be the last word we say upon the British constitution.

Elections Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anthony Browne]

I wonder whether the hon. Member is aware that actually voter ID is very common in other countries. You said that it is a racist policy to bring back Jim Crow laws from the US. Are you aware that the world’s most successful multi-racial democracy, Canada, uses voter ID, as well as highly respected democracies such as Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Italy and France? They all use voter ID.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) answers that, can I please remind everybody, on all sides, not to refer to “you”, because that is me, and I have no views on this matter, as you know?

[Clive Lewis]

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will also know that many of the countries he mentioned already have ID cards fully in use by their populations. As you well know, we do not have them here. I know you are talking about a regional ID scheme, but if you are talking about a national ID scheme, fine, make that comparison. I do not believe you are, so I do not believe it is a fair comparison.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

“He”, not “you”.

[Clive Lewis]

I will conclude with my question to Members on the Government Benches: how comfortable are they with Government Front Benchers who are eroding the fabric of our fragile democracy? When will they speak up and express misgivings like the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) about the Government’s fleeting, rocky relationship not just with the truth but with democracy? Choose soon, because history will not judge your silence well.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There will be a five-minute limit from now on. It is nothing personal, Steve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary China group—in fairness, one of 22 vice-chairs—may I say to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) through you that I very much share his concerns? It is obviously necessary for us to engage in every way possible, but when the engagement is of the nature he described, that goes beyond normal engagement, and that should be a matter of concern across this Chamber.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am extremely grateful to Sir Iain Duncan Smith for his point of order and giving me forward notice of it, as well as to Alistair Carmichael following on. I am also grateful that he informed the chair of the all-party parliamentary China group. The Speaker and Deputy Speakers are not responsible for the operation of APPGs. In the first instance, I suggest that he put his points to the officers of the APPG in question. Indeed, the vice-chair having said what he did gives incredible strength to the arguments.

Further, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that the APPG has breached the rules, he is advised to contact the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He might also wish to know that the Standards Committee is undertaking an inquiry into APPGs. As he just stated, it is a matter of public record that Mr Speaker is very concerned about the sanctioning of any Members of this House by the Chinese Government for carrying out their duties as Members of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

This Bill is an affront to our democracy. It will interfere with and undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission, it will impose excessive and unnecessary restrictions on campaigning groups and, worst of all, it will not only disallow the voting rights of millions who do not have ID but lead to an even lower level of voter engagement. This Bill is unnecessary, costly and a Conservative power grab.

Although the proposal to introduce voter ID has been widely covered already, I feel that I must emphasise that we should be working to encourage and support the people of the UK to exercise their democratic right to vote, not disenfranchising them. That is particularly likely to be the case for the most disadvantaged groups, who are already the most marginalised in our society.

I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention a joint statement on voter ID by a coalition of 19 Welsh organisations, which highlights how proposals in the Bill risk the disenfranchisement of already marginalised groups in Wales that they work with and represent, including homeless people, people with disabilities, older people, ethnic minorities, young people, Gypsies and Travellers, and the Roma community in Wales. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that joint statement.

In contrast, I am extremely proud that the Welsh Government have taken exactly the approach that I feel is needed by taking action to encourage young people to vote—16 and 17-year-olds voted for the first time in Senedd elections in May this year—and making it easier for people to vote across the board. We are also looking to trial polling stations in schools and colleges to tackle low youth turnout at elections, and we are considering putting polling stations in supermarkets and leisure centres. These steps will make it easier for people to vote and make our democracy a more vibrant one where everyone’s vote counts.

If the Government press ahead with their proposals, my constituents will notice a stark difference between Welsh elections and Westminster elections. They will enjoy easy and accessible elections for local government and the Senedd, and they will face enormous barriers and inconveniences when it comes time to elect their MP. I would be interested to hear what discussions Ministers have had with the Welsh Government on the proposals in the Bill.

There is much more to this Bill than voter ID. It threatens the independence of the Electoral Commission with Government and parliamentary interference. It gives the Government and the Tory party the ability to set the strategic plan for the body that oversees elections. That is significant, as the Electoral Commission has investigated many key Government allies in recent years, including Vote Leave, and the Conservative party for its 2017 election spending. It is clear to me that these proposals will undermine the Electoral Commission and stifle oversight and criticism.

I also have grave doubts about the proposals surrounding third-party campaigners and the impact that they may have on important campaigning groups, charities and trade unions. The majority of campaign work during elections is done by individuals and groups that are not members of political parties, and results in increased voter registration and turnout. As the Committee on Standards in Public Life commented,

“third-party campaigning is a good thing, because it encourages people to vote”.

What we should be doing is putting measures in place that encourage people to vote, as we are doing in Wales. This Bill does the opposite, and I oppose it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Without my even imposing a four-minute limit, which I am about to do, you did it in four minutes, so congratulations. Four minutes—James Grundy.

[James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)]

I welcome the Bill. The provisions within it are long overdue. Given how thoroughly the ground has been gone over on some of the main planks of this legislation, I do not intend to go over it again. I do, however, wish to raise a number of technical points relating to the governance of local elections. Having stood in local elections as a candidate, or acted as an agent for more than 20 years in the seat I now represent, I have some experience of that.

First, I welcomed the changes to the nomination process for this year’s set of local elections, whereby only two signatures were required on the nomination paper, instead of the normal 10. This greatly reduced the administrative burden for both political parties and independent candidates in the local elections, leading to a considerable increase in participation, especially by independent candidates and those from minor parties, and making it easier for major parties to field candidates across wards they might otherwise have struggled to do so in. I hope the changes will be made permanent. I understand that this system, or one very similar to it, has been in place in Scotland since 2007 without either incident or much controversy. I hope that such a measure will be incorporated in the Bill.

Hon. Members will also be aware that many metropolitan boroughs are undergoing local government boundary reviews at the moment, meaning that in short order they will have what are known as all-out elections. Most metropolitan boroughs normally elect by thirds, with three-member wards. Broadly speaking, those wards tend to be very large compared with some of the more rural areas, with electorates ranging from roughly 10,000 to 20,000 depending on the local authority.

In all-out elections in three-member wards, the number of candidates can of course triple, so five candidates can become 15. That can lead to very long ballot papers, which can lead to confusion for electors, especially the elderly, and can be very difficult to tally for counting staff, given that candidates from the same party are scattered across the ballot paper. This can turn a count that would normally be completed in a few hours into a daylong event.

I propose that, when multiple candidates are up for election in the same ward, candidates should still be listed individually on the ballot paper, but should be grouped on the ballot paper by political party for the ease of the public in finding their candidates of choice and for the ease of counting staff in tallying votes at the count. That change would reduce confusion for electors and considerably foreshorten the length of local election counts in this type of all-out elections.

Finally, there is the matter of the relatively recently established metro Mayor elections. [Interruption.] I know, I know. Currently, mayoral elections can overlap with local elections in the metropolitan authorities they cover. Unfortunately, this has led to unforeseen consequences for the administration of these elections, particularly the count. Earlier, I alluded to the fact that local election counts in a metropolitan borough such as Wigan can be over in an hour or two in normal circumstances. The recent combined local and mayoral elections in Greater Manchester, including polling day, took three days to administer as opposed to the normal one. On the Friday of the count, staff had verified the ballots cast in the local election by 10 am, but were forced to wait until 4 pm before they could start counting them due to issues with the verification of the mayoral ballots—a six-hour wait before counting could even begin. The mayoral ballots had to be verified again on Saturday morning before they could be counted. Most staff and counting agents were exhausted after three very long days across—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We have to leave it there. I am terribly sorry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The wind-ups will begin at 6.40 pm. This will be the last speech of four minutes, and we will then move to a time limit of three minutes.

Afghanistan

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

We have all seen the footage—the shocking images of Afghan cities that now look like the wild west, with huge guns slung casually over every shoulder, shots ringing out in warning and an unmistakeable exploding threat. As we watch on in disbelief, our sense of helplessness and impotence grows by the hour. The situation in Afghanistan is one that very few in this House can really imagine, but the few among us who have served there have told us exactly what is going on in several incredibly moving speeches.

It is fundamentally our duty to exhaust every possible avenue, make every possible effort and do all in our power to help those in need. We are all they have. We are safe and free, and we must offer that safety and freedom to those at risk of losing theirs. So what should we do? What are the people of Britain, as well as those experienced NGOs and current and former service personnel, telling us to do? The message is loud and clear: we must offer safe routes out, and we must offer asylum—no ifs or buts.

It is deeply disturbing that the rights and fundamental freedoms of women and girls are under serious threat. Just over a quarter of the democratically elected MPs in Afghanistan’s House of the People were women, but it appears that no women at all are now represented by the new all-male regime. Men with guns promising that women may still be allowed to work and access education, with many caveats, will undoubtedly set off alarm bells for the women journalists, teachers, business owners, NGO workers, doctors, artists, politicians and judges who all face much uncertainty in the coming months.

Many women here are angry, extremely worried and determined to fight for the rights of our Afghan sisters. I have been inundated with messages and emails from people who want to help. The Government must listen and assure all of them and all of us that they are carrying out the will of the majority of the British people. In my constituency, our excellent Kent Refugee Action Network, as part of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, has laid out what is needed. They are asking questions that they need urgent answers to relating to family reunion and the mental health of young people from Afghanistan, which has already been severely impacted. What happens to those who are in the UK who have been previously refused asylum because Kabul was considered safe? Can their cases now be considered urgently? Will local authorities, especially those in Kent, receive sufficient financial support to house asylum seekers in suitable accommodation?

I make one final plea to the Government: listen to our constituents, to our NGOs, to feminist activists such as Sophie Walker and her change.org petition, which has now reached 200,000 people signing—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, Rosie.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the armed forces, especially those who reside in my constituency of Wealden. I also want to take a moment to pay tribute to all those Afghan men and women who were brutalised for 17 years under the Taliban, did everything that they could to rebuild their country, and once again will have to face a Taliban without us by their side.

There are many who have served in Afghanistan on these Benches. I had a very brief moment in Kabul. For 17 years under the Taliban, no female voice was heard in the Afghan Parliament, the Loya Jirga. I worked for the BBC World Service and we rounded up some very brave women to make sure that female voices were heard for the first time in the Loya Jirga. We did that under the threat of the Taliban, but I had a British passport, and I knew that I could come home and be safe. I was naively optimistic in thinking that these women’s lives would be improved for the better. I am now receiving phone calls telling me that it is game over.

It has taken 20 years to have 69 female MPs and they will watch us speak here today knowing what will happen if we cannot get them out, and soon. They cannot wait for five years. It is not just them, but their families, everyone who has worked with them, and everyone in an NGO who has worked to un-Talibanise the laws and processes in Afghanistan who are now targeted. It means that, after 20 years, we will have to start all over again. This has been catastrophic, cack-handed, cruel and humiliating. This is the watershed moment of the west’s failure.

I want to say two very quick things, hopefully to try to be constructive. I need to understand how our intelligence has failed, how the imagination of those providing the intelligence has failed, and, if we are relying on this intelligence now going forward, how we can be assured that they know to do the right thing, whether it is in relation to our regional partners, the Taliban or any further security issue. I would like to have a better understanding of where our parameters are when it comes to dealing with the Taliban, of what leverage we have to ensure safe passage, and of whether any aid funding will reach the people whom it needs to get to.

My final point is about the radicalisation that is going to emerge from Afghanistan. There will be not just the extremism that the Taliban will promote, but a fight in the middle east and Asia about who represents Islam. Members may not agree with me, but some countries have been trying to become more liberal since 9/11 to take away the taint around Islam. Will they now have to become even more conservative and brutal to compete with the Taliban? That will bring forward a new version of extremism where we cannot rely on any safety and security for women in the middle east or in any Islamic state.

Finally, may I ask anybody listening—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Sorry, but more than half the people are not going to get in—I do apologise. I call Layla Moran.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have put in place a three-minute time limit. Every time Members from certain parties get to the end of their speeches, they add on another minute by taking an intervention. Is it not a huge discourtesy to everyone on your list who is going to miss out for them to add on a minute every time they do not think the time limit is long enough?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There are a lot of people who are not going to get in—we know that—but under current procedures people can take up to two interventions. Yes, people should take on board the fact that they are possibly doing some of their colleagues out of a turn if that happens, so I hope that the position will not be abused.

[Gavin Newlands]

I should point out to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) that we are six hours into the debate and this is the second SNP Back-Bench speech on this important issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) mentioned women and girls. The Taliban have said that they are committed to the rights of women. Does he agree with me that these misogynist thugs see women as third-class people and chattels only there to serve men, and that this House cannot believe a word the Taliban say about the rights of women?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I apologise to more than 80 Members who did not get in, but the final contribution before the wind-ups is from Antony Higginbotham. Please do not take interventions because we will not add any time on.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

With the leave of the House, I shall make some closing remarks on behalf of the Opposition. As the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), is now at the Dispatch Box, let me begin by welcoming her back. I am sure she has heard all the comments made by colleagues this afternoon and hope she feels appreciated. I agree with what the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said: it almost feels like the Minister has never been away. As her opposite number, I can say that she has never been more than a text message or Microsoft Teams call away. I know that it must have been quite challenging at times, but it is a credit to her, her strength and her strength of character that she has continued to do the job in the way she has through an incredibly challenging time personally. Now that she is back, she is not going to be easing her way back into it, because we have not only this chunky piece of legislation before us but the Elections Bill to come.

This is probably a good opportunity for me not only to welcome the new SNP spokesperson on election matters, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), who made an incredibly passionate speech, but to pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who was a pleasure to work with and a fully signed up constitutional geek, unlike the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), apparently—he claims not to be but I am sure that we can convince him otherwise.

This was a very good debate and I wish to make a few comments about what was said. I referred just a moment ago to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, who made a strong case for the argument that this legislation is a huge power grab by the Executive. Indeed, I agree with him that clause 3 looks very much like the Government are still smarting from the 2019 court judgment on the Prorogation that never was. I reach out to my SNP colleague and suggest to those on the Government Benches that one way to solve the perceived problem that the Government have, and the reason for clause 3 being in the Bill, could be a parliamentary vote on Dissolution, which would pave a way forward.

Alongside many other Members, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) raised the issue of shortening the election period. Indeed, election periods have got much longer—although in the most recent election, of course, the days were much shorter. I urge all colleagues to listen to their local electoral administrators, because there are significant challenges in running elections for those who are behind the scenes, not just for us who are campaigning. One of the biggest challenges we have is the processing of electoral enrolments. I suggest to the Minister that we could look again—perhaps it could be included in the Elections Bill—at a process of automatic voter registration, which would include everybody who was entitled to vote on the electoral roll and save an awful lot of time. Perhaps that would give us the freedom to shorten the election period without putting additional pressure on electoral administrators.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made many salient points in the debate, but ultimately he called for a level playing field, which is a concern that runs right across those of us have concerns about the Bill.

I have sparred with the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) on many other constitutional and electoral matters over the years—it is always a pleasure—but I very much agreed with him when he was talking about the threats to democracy and democratic systems globally, including his point about the United States of America. However, I disagreed with his analysis of the 2017-19 Parliament, which was echoed by some of his colleagues. I think we are unfairly blaming the Fixed-term Parliaments Act as the sole cause of the difficulties that the Government had at that time. If I close my eyes and imagine that that Act was not in place in the 2017-19 Parliament, I do not see that the political path would have been much smoother for the Government, so it is unfair to blame solely that Act for the Prime Minister’s difficulties at that time. When we legislate, we should be careful not to base everything on recent political experience. Indeed, we are legislating for constitutional matters that should not only secure as broad a consensus as we can across the House but stand the test of time. We should not base everything on the specific and unique circumstances in that Parliament.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for reminding us that he is, of course, one of the remaining veterans of the coalition Government. He referred to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act as a “necessary modernisation” and I agree with him. That is certainly borne out as true if we look across similar parliamentary democracies across Europe and the western world; we would be out of step by reverting to the old way of doing things—indeed, to do so is arguably a regressive step. He warned that the party that is in government today is not necessarily going to be in government forever and that those on the Opposition Benches might one day be in government. We should all be careful what we wish for and consider the fair and level playing field that we all seek to achieve.

I really enjoyed the contributions made by many Members. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) had an awful lot to say, but his take-down of the ridiculous situation of having a super majority in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was very succinct. Indeed, it was total nonsense that there was any super-majority in the legislation in the first place. I certainly do not think that the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) built any bridges with his Liberal Democrat colleagues in his contribution.

The Bill before us does two things: it repeals the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and reinstates the status quo as if the past 10 years did not happen at all. On the first of those matters, the official Opposition absolutely agree with the Government that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 should be repealed. However, the Government have some way to go to have our confidence that this Bill is worthy of our support. We certainly cannot wish to drag our monarch into politics. We should ensure that Parliament has a central role to play in the process, as is right in any modern democracy, and certainly has a say over Dissolution.

I say to the Minister that if this was a Bill in isolation, that would be one matter, but there is a pattern of behaviour and a pattern of legislation coming out of this Government when it comes to constitutional and election matters. The attacks on the Electoral Commission from members of her party, the attacks on judicial review, and making it harder to vote by requiring ID at polling stations when there is very little problem to solve shows a pattern of behaviour that does cause concern. So much of our politics and parliamentary procedures rely on people being, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, good guys—and women, of course. If that is broken then everything else will fray at the edges.

Ultimately, this Bill is about where power lies. I would certainly argue that power should lie with the people, but this is a power grab by the Executive against the legislature. The Bill as it currently stands needs an awful lot of work if it is to have our confidence.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Minister, we have already had many messages from within the Chamber welcoming you back to the place where you rightfully belong. May I say on behalf of every Member of Parliament that it brings us great joy to see you back here in Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I am extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point. I was going to address it in just a moment, because he raised it at the very outset, so I will come back to it shortly.

Let us be realistic. What is the prerogative power here for? It is a bit more like “break glass in case of emergency” than it is the kind of scheme that I think the Liberal Democrats are looking for. I think we can all agree that people do not welcome needless upheaval—Brenda from Bristol put it pretty well—but they do want their role in resolving a crisis. Vernon Bogdanor, in evidence to Committees along the journey of this Bill, made the point very well. Essentially, unsuccessful Governments have attempted to get to five years. Successful Governments have gone to the people at four years. Anything short of that is a national emergency. What we are talking about today is what needs to happen in the cases of emergency or crisis. I note the arguments made for fixed terms, particularly by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), but we have tried designing those and they have not worked, so what we are returning to here is an arrangement that did work.

I want to reassure the House on a couple of points, as I said I would to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. The long campaign expenditure controls are not changed by this repeal. Those arrangements are that if Parliament is not dissolved 55 months from its first meeting, then the long campaign controls apply. That situation continues. That has not changed. I also point out that there is a measure in the schedule to this Bill that adds to that in respect of third party donations. The schedule also provides that the trigger for the election timetable in the case of a general election is the Dissolution of Parliament. That is an important safeguard that we have built into the Bill, acknowledging arguments made on that note from the Joint Committee.

I conclude by thanking hon. Members once again for their contributions this afternoon. It has been a very good debate, and I am delighted to be back and to be part of it. My priority with this Bill is to encourage consensus, because that is what will give us the most effective operation of the conventions that must endure once again.

I close with the points made by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the nature of our constitution:

“at the heart of the UK’s constitutional arrangements is a fine but constantly-shifting balance of convention, principle and law, that provides clear guidance, but also flexibility… In areas of prerogative power, the Sovereign remains the constitutional backstop.”

I could not have put it better. None the less, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), in his inimitable style, did put it better. He said that our institutions are often the envy of the world, and I could not agree more. It is those that I want to uphold. This Bill will return our country to successful constitutional arrangements that have stood the test of time and will continue to serve the people, with the choice ultimately in their hands.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am anticipating a Division, so could Members please follow covid regulations as they go to vote?

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Security of Ministers’ Offices and Communications

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

As I have said, Government guidance is that official devices, email accounts and communications applications should be used for communicating classified information, but other forms of electronic communication may be used in the course of conducting business, and official information that is held in private email accounts is subject to FOI. I hope that that provides the right hon. Lady with assurance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for coming today to respond to Peter Bone’s urgent question and for responding to 37 parliamentary questions in total. We will now suspend before the statement on covid.