Debate on the Address
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Meg Hillier
The hon. Gentleman and I could have a completely separate conversation about ID cards, but I absolutely agree with what he says; I used to use that as an example of how it can be done affordably and well. But we have a disconnect in government on this issue. We have discussions about vaccine passports and talk about ID, but not ID cards. We have talk about vaccine passports by an app, but without ID. If vaccine passports are ever going to work, we need some form of verifying ID card. So it seems to me that the Government are arguing, counter to their 2010 position, for abolishing not just ID cards but fingerprints in passports, which took us way below the international standards on identity verification. We need to see a proper, coherent approach to this, not an approach that just stops the poorest from voting and cuts people out of exercising their basic democratic right, when the percentage of in-person fraud is minuscule. Yes, we could do more to tackle postal fraud and the harvesting of votes, but not this.
I want to touch on some of the environmental issues that are touched on in the Bill, although we do not yet know the detail. I am pleased that the Environment Bill is being carried over, but let us hope that we see more detail and more meaningful steps towards action on this issue. The Public Accounts Committee has spent some time over the last year looking at environmental and climate change issues, and we have found the Government wanting. They have been promising the Earth with big broad-brush headlines, but potentially really damaging the Earth through their inaction. There is no planet B, so we have to get it right now. Ambitious projects such as stopping production of petrol and diesel cars within nine years make great headlines, but there is a lot to be done in the nine years between now and then, and very little detail. So it is vital that that is got right, and I think that there is, or should be, cross-party consensus across the aisle that we need to tackle this generational issue for our planet.
On green jobs, again the Government make promises, but I have been looking at this for at least a decade. With COP26 on the way, we can expect a flurry of stage-managed headlines, but the detailed plans to achieve all these things are not there. Over the last decade or so, we have seen the privatisation of the UK Green Investment Bank, and even the removal of its absolute requirement to deliver green investment; we have seen the failed green deal, which cost over £100,000 per loan; and we have seen a fourth contest launch for carbon capture and storage, which would help to tackle some of our energy intensive industries. The first three fell at the first hurdle.
I want to touch on immigration. I proudly represent a constituency that is the world in one borough. We hear tough talk from the Home Secretary on this, and then we hear talk about how she is going to support the Windrush victims. We should be proud of our record of accepting people from the old empire, from the Commonwealth and from across the world when they are fleeing persecution to come to this country. We need to continue to support those people to find sanctuary where they are fleeing challenge, but we also need to better support those who are legally here but are unable to fully participate as citizens because of the barriers that are put up.
The cost and complications of our immigration system have gone through the roof. When I was elected 16 years ago, people had to apply for indefinite leave to remain. They then got five years and they could then apply for citizenship. It then went down to three years, so they had to apply twice to reach their five years for citizenship. They now have to apply three times, each time paying a fee. The Prime Minister talks about making Britain great again and about Britain having a big place in the world, so why is it that when someone comes from outside Britain to contribute to our country, we put these barriers in their way and make life difficult for them and, worse still, for their children?
I am proud to be working with We Belong and with my constituent, Chrisann Jarrett. This organisation represents young people who arrived in this country as toddlers or young children and who have now found that, because they are unable to pay these fees and their citizenship fee, they are excluded from university and often from the workplace. They are legitimately here in most cases, but they are being priced out. That is a crying shame and a stain on our country.
This Queen’s Speech has bits in it that I want to support, but I want to see the detail and I want to see delivery. I want to see movement on social care, on housing and on green jobs, of course, but on the basis of the last 11 years, we have seen failure after failure, promises made and not delivered and—crucially, from a public accounts point of view—lessons not learned and mistakes repeatedly made. Cheap headlines over substance just let people down. I will back what is good for my constituents, but on the basis of this Government’s record, and despite the Prime Minister talking about hope, change and opportunity, I am not very hopeful.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the next speaker, can I just ask for some self-discipline on the length of contributions, because I would like to get through the debate without putting a time limit on contributions later on?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Well, very few have been prosecuted to date for this reason: the forces of law and order, whether they be our armed forces or police, were acting to protect the community. I am very clear that if a member of the armed forces steps outside the law, of course they are amenable to the law—I am clear about that—but what I am not prepared to accept are our veterans being targeted in the way that they have been in being singled out and pursued through the courts when there is no new evidence and when they have previously been subjected to article 2-compliant investigations. That is unfair, it is wrong, and it must stop. The Government must bring forward legislation to protect veterans and retired police officers from those kinds of vexatious prosecutions. We need a proper process to deal with legacy that enables the innocent victims of terrorism, in particular, to have access to justice so as to have their cases examined. That is why we would not be in favour of measures that would close off the prospect of innocent victims having access to justice.
Northern Ireland has come a long way in the past 100 years, through very difficult and challenging times, but in good times as well. I end by paying tribute to the many hundreds of thousands of people in Northern Ireland who continue to carry the scars of our troubled past. I want to see a Northern Ireland and a future for our people that enables us all to move forward. We cannot forget the past. We cannot pretend it did not happen. But we can take the steps that are required to ensure that it never happens again and that in the next century the mark of Northern Ireland—our place in the world—will be to be known for what we can achieve in realising the full potential of all our people in building a shared future for everyone in Northern Ireland. That is what we want. That is what we desire for our people. We learn from the past and we understand our history, but we look to the future. I have outlined measures that the Government can take to help us build that shared future to create a Northern Ireland where there is peace and prosperity for all. Let us remove the barriers to achieving those objectives.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now go to the first of our video links—Sir John Redwood.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I am delighted to be able to participate in the Queen’s Speech debate and it is good to be back here in the Chamber participating in person. Since the last Queen’s Speech our country has suffered so much with the pandemic, but with the success of the vaccine programme and the Government policies the future begins to look brighter now, and we are all grateful for that.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) on her election to this place and wishing her every success in her career. I am sure she will be very successful and dynamic for us, and we look forward to hearing her speeches. I also congratulate and praise the proposer of the Loyal Address, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara). He has been a long-standing friend of mine since 2005, and today’s statesmanlike speech is a real credit to him. I also congratulate the seconder of the Loyal Address, my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), on the powerful and effective way in which she delivered an interesting and invigorating speech. By comparison, I fear that the speeches from Opposition leaders have not been so good.
The Leader of the Opposition’s speech was disappointing in content, unconvincing and uninspiring. The Scottish National party leader seems to have only one speech, which he repeats regularly. He hardly mentioned the contents of the Loyal Address or Queen’s Speech. The Liberal Democrats always promise everything and talk a good talk, but do not seem to have any policies or actions to take us forward. By comparison, the Queen’s Speech is constructive and comprehensive, and I know it will gain favour across the whole UK.
As we start to come out of the pandemic and the lockdowns, the Government will have a lot of issues to tackle—we all know that. I strongly support the Government’s approach and the dynamic leadership we have seen from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He has risen to the challenges of the past year and deserves credit for his leadership. That was acknowledged by the voters—[Interruption.] It is no good our having sedentary comments from the Opposition Members, as they have nothing constructive to put forward. He deserves the credit and that was what was acknowledged by the voters last Thursday, who believe that the Government will successfully deliver on the people’s priorities, which include housing, the economy, employment, education, training and crime, among other things. Those are the issues that affect people in their day-to-day lives and the Queen’s Speech outlines a coherent strategy to deal with them.
Today, I want to focus on the measures for education, and particularly on skills and post-16 training and education. I eagerly look forward to the skills and post-16 education Bill. The skills revolution that the Government promised is absolutely fundamental to the success of global Britain post Brexit.
Outside politics, I have worked as a teacher and a lecturer, so I have seen at first hand the importance of good education and training for young people and for not-so-young people. My time lecturing at Bexley College showed me the real value of further education colleges and how they have been regrettably undervalued by all Governments in the last couple of decades. They are absolutely fundamental to increasing skills and opportunities across our country. I passionately believe that every child and young person deserves a good start in life, regardless of their background, or where they live. Access to excellent schools is essential to build the foundations for opportunities and success in later life.
Conservative Governments of the last 10 or 11 years have done much to improve our schools and we are grateful for the real achievements we have seen. However, we have a skills shortage in this country and I believe we can rectify that through post-16 education. I would highlight finance as an issue in further education. Colleges need more resources and support to be able to act as an engine for social mobility. I also believe that FE lecturers should be paid more to ensure that we get the best people and we show we really value our FE lecturers.
I know the Government will look at this issue, but we must ensure that young people are encouraged to engage with education and understand the long-term benefits. That is why I strongly welcome the actions to provide more lifelong learning opportunities through colleges and universities across our country, such as by making studying part time more easily accessible to people. That is so important.
I also strongly support the lifetime skills guarantee, which provides adults in England without an A-level or equivalent qualification the opportunity to take up a free, fully funded college course. Alongside that, it is very important to make education loans more flexible and allow people to space out their study across their lifetime and take more high-quality vocational courses. The lifetime skills guarantee will transform the provision of skills across this country and help people to get the skills they need at every stage of their lives. This long-term plan will ensure that, as the nature of work changes—we live in a world that is frequently and rapidly changing—people have the skills to retrain and find new, better jobs. There are going to be many more new, different jobs in the future. We have to have the workforce and the opportunities for people to be able to study and train so that they can take up those opportunities.
I have long advocated that local employers should work more closely with further education providers to align training more closely with employer needs. That is so important and I am afraid that it has not happened. I regularly speak to and visit businesses across my borough of Bexley and elsewhere in the country when I go on speaking and meeting engagements. One issue that is often raised is that children are not getting the required skills in school. They are not then taking them to college and they do not leave college with the standard of skills that employers require. That is disappointing. It is not just the Government who are at fault here; it is also the employers not participating and making their views known more readily. As a result, often, small and medium-sized businesses—the backbone of our economy, employing the majority of people in our country—have struggled to access and retain employees with the skills they need. That significantly impacts on productivity and growth.
That is why it is essential that businesses are placed at the heart of skills plans and work with further education colleges to address skill shortages in local areas. I therefore welcome the plans for employers to have a statutory role in planning publicly funded training programmes with education providers through a skills accelerator programme. All that will contribute to better lifelong upskilling opportunities, so that people can take on better paid jobs in their local areas, and it will encourage innovation and entrepreneurs. That is so important. Businesses and colleges are in the community and they know what the local needs, and the local workforce needs, are.
The skills revolution announced today will support the nation’s recovery from the ongoing pandemic, while building on the progress made so far to level up the country and ensure equal opportunities for all people, wherever they live. In London, as in other parts of the country, we have skill shortages. There are inequalities of opportunity. As well as education, housing is important —the opportunity for people to have a decent home. I remember well in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher the determination to have more homes and for people to own their own homes. My grandparents lived in social housing. They would have loved the opportunity in the 1960s in Harlow to buy their own property and feel that they had a stake in the community. Margaret Thatcher made that a reality. We are now looking at a new generation. We need more people to be homeowners, to have a stake in the community and to value that opportunity.
The Queen’s Speech also deals with something of which I am very supportive: ending fixed-term Parliaments. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was needed at a particular time, but it is not needed now. As we know, the issues that have arisen from it in the last few years are many and varied. This change will restore the status quo and ensure the constitution operates properly, so we cannot have the absurd situation we had in 2019 where the Prime Minister was unable, because of the law, to call a general election. It was surprising, of course, that the Opposition did not want to vote for an election at that time. It was the first time in my long political career that an Opposition did not want to call for a general election.
The Act was needed in 2010 because the coalition Government faced huge problems left by the last Labour Government and we had to have stability. We could not be in a position where the Government were always wondering whether they were going to survive and whether there would have to be a general election. It was needed at that particular time, but that time has passed. We now need to look at the opportunities for going back to the tradition where the Prime Minister, of whatever party, has the right to determine when he asks Her Majesty the Queen to go to the country to renew the Government’s mandate. It is therefore only right that we get rid of this anachronism that is not necessary at this time.
I will conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you did not want us to speak for too long. There is much in this Queen’s Speech that is to be commended. It is a programme for the next year. It is going to keep us busy, but it is going to transform our country and ensure we make global Britain a real success. For the last year and a half, the world has been dominated by the covid-19 pandemic, but I believe we are now looking to the end of restrictions on 21 June and we can return to some sort of normality.
It was disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition did not commend the Prime Minister for the fact that we are slowly unlocking and going forward to get back to normality, because it has been a success story in this country compared with other countries. It is regrettable that we cannot have some bipartisanship and say when things are good. I always understood that an Opposition praised what was right and supported it but then criticised what they disagreed with. I did not hear any of that today; it was all disagreement and criticism. That is very disappointing.
The country proved with its voting last week that it wants to go forward, it wants to be constructive and it wants to move on. That is what this Queen’s Speech does in so many fields. In so many areas, we are looking to deal with the problems facing ordinary people every day of their lives, and that is to be commended. The issues people are concerned about are being dealt with in this Queen’s Speech, and it will pave the way for us to build back better, putting jobs, skills and businesses at the heart of our recovery. It is the way forward. I commend the Queen’s Speech.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I know that everybody is enjoying the luxury of there being no time limit at the moment, but if Members could aim for sub-10-minute contributions, we will be a lot fairer to those who speak later on.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd. Mi wnai fy ngorau—I will do my best.
It was very interesting to listen to what the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) had to say, because I previously worked in further education as well. We are all good at talking about parity of esteem between academic education and vocational training and skills, but it is about how we realise that and, particularly, the sort of curriculum that we provide. It is easy to provide the same old curriculum, but it is very challenging to look at the transferable skills that will be needed, predict the skills that will be needed and decide who we offer those to and where.
I welcome today’s Queen’s Speech as an opportunity for us all to take stock of the United Kingdom, our legislative priorities and the interests of those people and nations whom we serve in this place. Wales has returned a pro-devolution Parliament, whose Government Plaid Cymru will now hold to their manifesto commitment to achieve what they styled as “far-reaching federalism”—we shall see what that actually means. Wales also thumpingly rejected those who explicitly sought to deny our democracy its very existence. Scotland has returned an SNP Government with overwhelming support and every right to hold a vote on Scotland’s future.
While the Prime Minister’s victory over Labour in parts of England was, indeed, impressive, it simply underscores that the Conservative party is riding high as the party of England and not the UK, yet the UK Government continue to hold powers over and withhold powers from the devolved nations and strongly regulate their budgets. That is why today’s most immediately disappointing omission is the Government’s failure to deliver on their manifesto pledge to reform social care in England.
In this year of all years, given the experiences that we have had of covid, we must recognise that it would be a fundamental failure not to acknowledge the dedication of care workers paid and unpaid, the stress and distress that families have experienced over the last year and the experiences of thousands upon thousands of people who depend for their welfare on the care system. Just as Dickens looked back at his own era and decried some of the social experiences and horrors of it, we might in the future look back at this era and decry how we have run the care system and what we have been satisfied with. That is the issue that we need to address—what families have suffered, what care workers have had to endure and the low pay that they have had, and what we have regarded as being acceptable for loved ones in their homes or in care homes.
I notice that the Government have made some positive sounds. There is a will across the House and across all the Parliaments of the United Kingdom to work together on this matter. We have to work together to do it. We will have failed the people we serve if we do not address the care crisis that we have experienced in the last year, which we know has been there for years.
In Wales, the number of people aged 65 and over is projected to increase by 44% in the next two decades, to over 1 million people—almost a third of the population. We have the oldest population of any UK nation, yet a shorter life expectancy, with poorer health outcomes. A well-funded and integrated social care system is vital for supporting the future long-term health and wellbeing of people in Wales. Increased spending is inevitable for the system in Wales, and the real choice will be whether to increase funding on a piecemeal basis or to grasp the fundamental challenge of genuine reforms.
The costs and the need are clear. Covid cost Welsh local authorities nearly £30 million in additional expenditure for providing older adult social services during the first quarter of 2020-21 alone. In the longer term, with need and cost rising, net expenditure for community care services for older people in Wales will rise by 177% in the next 15 years. Social care is devolved in Wales, but with our limited means to raise funds, both our powers and our funds are delineated and bestowed on us by Westminster. We thus face a real challenge of affordability. That is why, in this new parliamentary term, I extend a hand to the Prime Minister and his Chancellor to prove that they care for Wales. Give us both the powers and the needs-based means so that we can afford proper social care and finally address this perennial issue.
Equally pressing is the climate challenge. I hope the Government will support the cross-party climate and ecological emergency Bill to strengthen our efforts to tackle the fundamental and all-important crisis.
In that spirit, I hope the Government will recognise the need to correct the stymieing inconsistencies in the devolution settlement and devolve the Crown Estate in Wales to Wales—as has occurred, of course, in Scotland. Control over our natural resources and their rent is essential not only for their sustainable management, but to help generate the capital investment necessary to deliver our net zero future. The change would improve upon the current restrictive borrowing limits imposed by the Treasury on the Welsh Government and better connect Wales’s natural heritage and resources with their sustainable use and production.
Finally, I hope that the Prime Minister will join me in welcoming Wales’s decision to return a pro-devolution Parliament with a Government committed to overhauling the UK’s constitutional framework. Levelling up has so far proved to be a ruse to centralise power in Westminster. The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 has shown itself to undermine devolution, and the Government have already broken their manifesto promise to Wales that we would not be a penny worse off when we left Europe.
From our personal lives to our politics, actions speak louder than words, of course, and no doubt the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will join me in echoing the comments of a Labour Senedd Member who noted that we are at a crossroads between independence and a
“polarising hard British unionism based by and large on a growing English nationalism with its epicentre in 10 Downing Street.”
We must achieve radical constitutional change, as Labour argues in Wales. Will Labour argue it here, too? A welcome first step would be further tax powers to help with our post-conflict recovery. The next must be the devolution of the policing and justice system to Wales—as suggested in evidence to the Thomas commission and as voted for by the people of Wales.
It will be a pleasure, if the opportunity arises, to work with the Leader of the Opposition to further those constitutional objectives. They were borrowed from Plaid Cymru, and the only Labour Government in the UK could strengthen their own hand considerably and further their own principles considerably if they admitted it.
In sum, our nations face pressing challenges that touch our loved ones, our homes, our climate and our nations. This parliamentary term is when we must address those challenges, and I look forward to the opportunity to work with the Government and the Opposition as best they can to find the solutions.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank Liz Saville Roberts, because not only did you promise to try and come in sub-10 minutes, but you delivered on your promise with seven minutes. Well done.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsTuesday 27th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 27 April 2021 - (27 Apr 2021)
John Healey
Yes indeed. My right hon. Friend has worked as hard as anyone in this House on this Bill and I am really grateful to him for that. He has been part of what the Opposition, certainly, are now set to do, which is to forge a consensus on the changes needed to the Bill so that it better serves the interests of British troops, British justice and Britain’s standing in the world. I believe that we, as the official Opposition, and we as a House, have a duty to try to make this Bill fit for purpose as the new legal framework for this country when we have in future to commit our servicemen and women to conflict overseas. It falls short of that test at present. We will not let those matters rest.
This is a classic case of a Government who will win their legislation but have lost the arguments. When that is the case, the Government will find that those arguments come back again, not just from the Opposition but from all parties, not just from this House but from both Houses, and not just from Parliament but from all the range of outside organisations that together have been the chorus of criticism about so much in this Bill that is still left undone but will be done in future.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I inform the House that the knife falls at 4.32 pm and we have nine speakers, plus the Minister to respond. That gives hardly any time, so can I implore those contributing either remotely or physically please to use self-discipline? With nobody specifically in mind, I call David Davis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]
Thank you for the hint, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will confine myself to issues around Lords amendment 1R in order to limit what I have to say.
Last week’s concessions from the Government on the matters relating to amendment 1R were long overdue. With their tabling of the amendments removing genocide, torture and crimes against humanity, some of the most egregious errors in the Bill were corrected, which is why I voted in favour of the Government amendment last week. However, as I warned on Wednesday, that amendment left one serious matter unresolved—war crimes are still subject to a presumption against prosecution. Thankfully, further representations from Lord Robertson and others have led the Government now to rectify this oversight with the amendment we are considering today. I welcome that further concession. In government, as I said last week, it is always difficult to change your mind once you set out on a specific course of action, but the Government are to be commended for doing just that in the case of this Bill. In particular, I again commend the new Minister for his extremely rational approach to this and using the time that ping-pong has given him to good effect.
The original drafting of the Bill created a situation whereby the UK’s standing on the international stage would have been threatened. Our reputation as an upholder of the rule of law would have been tarnished and we would have run the risk of potentially having our troops hauled before the International Criminal Court. That would have been a truly shameful outcome. The ICC is usually in the business of prosecuting tyrants and torturers, not the soldiers of law-abiding democracies, let alone one with the United Kingdom’s reputation. The concessions last week would still have left our soldiers open to charges of war crimes. To be clear, these are not theoretical concerns of myself or other Members either here or in the other place. When I asked the chief prosecutor of the ICC for her consideration of the Government’s concessions on this point, she said in her response to me last Friday that
“any gap between the scope of coverage in the excludable offences under the proposed legislation and conduct which might otherwise constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court would risk…rendering relevant cases concerning such conduct admissible before the ICC.”
In other words, the Bill in its state last week would have still left our soldiers open to prosecution.
Today’s amendment means that torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide will all now, quite rightly, be excluded from the presumption against prosecution contained in the Bill. That is to be welcomed. On that basis, I am entirely supportive of the Government and they will get my vote today. However, I will just make a comment en passant relating to what the right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) said. The Ministry of Defence now needs to take the advice of people like former Judge Advocate General Blackett, and others, and improve its own investigation system to stop soldiers from going through the same problems again in future. The problem has always rested, in part, within the walls of the Ministry of Defence, so improvements to the investigation process must be made. Our troops need to be reassured that if they ever face allegations of wrongdoing they will be investigated fairly, rapidly, and without the threat of constant reinvestigation. Only then will our service personnel be properly protected from vexatious and damaging litigation, and only then will this Bill and its associated policy have properly achieved its aim.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I shall try to be brief. Last week, I spoke about what I see as British values, which have been mentioned in the debate. I therefore welcome the concession on war crimes, because any erosion of how we and the rest of the world perceive our British values would be deeply damaging to this country’s reputation.
As others have said, I believe there is still work to be done on the duty of care, and I flag up its connection with mental health. When I talk to constituents who have served Queen and country bravely, there is a fear that they will be abandoned if they find themselves in the position of being accused. I hear what other Members have said about the legal help that they would be afforded, but there is still a fear out there.
It would be churlish of me not to say thank you to the new Minister. Last week I said I did not know him very well, but what I have seen during one week gives me much more confidence in him. His predecessor was referred to as a roadblock, but I think the thoughtful and conciliatory attitude shown by the new Minister, whose fingerprints I rather suspect are on the war crimes concession, is very useful indeed.
I want to talk about the process. The Bill we see today is a lot better than the one we looked at last November. The cross-party work in the other place is deeply significant. Many Tory peers have been instrumental in bringing forward amendments. In yet another place, known as the Scottish Parliament, I knew Baroness Goldie in another incarnation. I came to respect that good lady’s thoughtful and judicious approach to matters, so I am not surprised to see her playing the role she does in the other place. We belong to different parties, but I recognise quality where I see it.
We have a Bill that is better than it was. In my opinion and that of my party, the jury is out on the duty of care in mental health, but the way we have improved the Bill is instructive to all of us. There is possibly a message to Her Majesty’s Government here. The reputation of the UK Parliament depends on the quality of the legislation that is enacted. Where there is co-operation across the House and between both Houses to make the best legislation, that is ideal. I very much hope that the Government will look at the process by which we came to be where we are today, learn from it and apply that technique to other legislation as it comes before us. I reiterate my thanks to the new Minister.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I will call the Minister at 4.27 pm, and the debate will finish at 4.32 pm.
Mr Kevan Jones
The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) said that this was a good Bill—no, it is not. It is a bad Bill, and it is an unnecessary Bill. All of this could have been done within the Armed Forces Bill that is going through Parliament, but the Government chose, for their own reasons, to put forward this Bill. It does not get to the central point of the issue, which is around investigations. They are completely absent from this Bill and currently absent from the Armed Forces Bill. They were resisted by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) in this Bill and in the Armed Forces Bill. It galls me that yesterday he was standing outside a court in Northern Ireland, trumpeting the fact that he was on the side of trying to stop people being investigated, when he had been in a position to do something about it. I think of him as being a bit like an actor in a play who has been sat in the audience watching, rather than taking part.
Without investigation, the Bill is flawed. I have written to the Minister: he needs to ensure that investigations are put in the Armed Forces Bill, because without that, despite the protections that have been claimed today, servicemen and women will be watching our proceedings, thinking that they have more protection than they have. They will still be investigated if allegations are made. There is an opportunity now, with the Armed Forces Bill, to remedy that.
Part 2 of this Bill should simply have been scrapped. I am sorry, but the idea that we should all have Limitation Act rights and yet members of our armed forces should not—that we should take those away from them—is just not good enough. A Bill that is supposed to give things to our armed forces has been taking things away from them. Part 2 will be challenged in court; only the lawyers will benefit from it.
I welcome the change on war crimes because, like many across the House, I was concerned about our international reputation. I fully support Lord Dannatt’s amendment; I believe we should support anything that helps servicemen and women who are going through such a process.
The Bill claimed to do a lot but does very little. It is disappointing. It could have been vastly improved, or just ignored altogether and incorporated into the Armed Forces Bill. There is an opportunity to put right what is not in this Bill when the Armed Forces Bill passes through the House. I know that the Minister is open to discussions about that, but I urge him to ensure that that happens, because without that, people will still be investigated; they will still go through the agony that this Bill was intended to stop. We all sympathised with that intention. It clearly will not be achieved in the Bill’s present form.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I also warmly welcome the further concession that the Minister has announced. The Bill will now exclude all the offences for which service personnel could be summoned before the International Criminal Court. That has now fixed the worst of the problems that many have been anxious about during debates on the Bill.
It would be helpful to understand why it has proved so hard for the Government to realise how awful what they were proposing was. No Minister wants to give armed forces carte blanche to commit torture, genocide and war crimes, and yet it has required the most extraordinary struggle to stop the Government doing exactly that. The noble Lord Robertson—I welcome the Minister’s tribute to him—introducing his amendment in the other place, said:
“Maybe after a lifetime in politics I was affected by some uncharacteristic naivety in thinking that the Government, faced by almost universal and expert opposition on this aspect of the Bill, would by now have changed their mind.” [Official Report, House of Lords, 13 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 1190.]
Yet they ploughed on until yesterday. Perhaps it was indeed the change of Minister that averted disaster, and with others I congratulate him on his achievement in a short time, but if he can, in winding up, shed some further light on what on earth has been going on, the House would be grateful.
I strongly support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said on duty of care and investigations. I hope that we will come back to them soon if the duty of care amendment is lost this afternoon. I warmly welcome the progress on the Bill in the past few days and would be grateful for any light the Minister can shed on what has been going on.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Jim Shannon —Please resume your seat no later than 4.27 pm.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I echo the comments by others in relation to those who served in Northern Ireland and the protection that we need. The Minister has responded on that very positively, but we also need a timescale for that to happen.
In the short time that I have, I want to refer to the legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel who are involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations. I am aware of this because I am aware of a young fellow in my constituency who served overseas and fought with many demons in his own life. I am not blaming the MOD for it, but I ask the question: could we do more? Lords amendment 5B on the duty of care to service personnel could give them the level of care that is earned from putting the uniform on. Subsection (6) of the new clause inserted by the amendment states:
“In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.”
When it comes to mental health and the effects on people’s families and lives, our moral obligation should and must be to go the extra mile. That is why I support the premise of the amendment. It reminds us of our moral obligation, which is as important as our legal obligation, to those who serve in uniform.
A five-year programme of study has been carried out in tandem with Queen’s University. The results show—and I want to have this on the record, in Hansard—that more than a third of all military veterans in Northern Ireland are likely to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Those are the stats, according to this study. More than 1,300 veterans responded to the survey, with 36% reporting signs of PTSD and the same number reporting problems with alcohol.
We have many charities in Northern Ireland that help out. I think of Beyond the Battlefield, in particular, which reaches out to those whom other charities perhaps miss; that is not to take away from the importance of other charities. Some of those cases are incredibly complex, and there are lots of issues for not just the individuals but family members. We need to address the duty of care, both morally and legally.
This is not helped by the fact that those who served in Northern Ireland continue to see no movement. They seek protection, which is very important to have in place for those who served in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister has given a commitment, but could he tell us where discussions are with the Secretary of State?
I usually say that I will not rehearse previous speeches, but this, I believe, bears repeating. Veterans who served in uniform and operated legally with honour, great courage and great fortitude deserve to be treated with equality. I say to the Government: please do the right thing and bring legislation on this issue forward in the Queen’s Speech in May. Let us show that our moral and legal obligation extends to those who have served on every occasion and from every region of this great nation of ours, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Could those leaving do so carefully, without touching the Dispatch Boxes, as they have been sanitised during the Division? Will Ministers coming in do likewise?
Emergency Services Personnel: Awards for Next of Kin
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, Mr Francois, but to speak you needed to have the permission of both the Minister and Colonel Bob—
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
indicated assent.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Exceptionally, then, because it is 20 past 1 in the morning and he is still here, I call Mark Francois to make a short contribution.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) [V]
I start by congratulating the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), on his promotion. I welcome him to his new role.
Article 8.2 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court defines the term “war crimes” in two ways: as “grave breaches” of the Geneva convention or
“serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict”.
Under those two headings, the article provides 31 different offences. Here are just some examples:
“Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives”;
“Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion”;
“Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments”;
and
“Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”.
I list some of those crimes because if we accept only the Government’s proposal, instead of the amendments from the other place, they will remain “relevant” offences under the Bill. I am incredibly sceptical about there being a presumption against prosecution just because a crime was committed abroad, but it is unclear to me why anyone would support a time limit or presumption against prosecution specifically on the charge of attacking defenceless towns or killing people who have surrendered. Why rule out torture but not physical mutilation or scientific experiments on enemy combatants?
The concessions that Ministers and the MOD have made on torture, genocide and crimes against humanity are very welcome, but they do not go far enough to ensure that some of the worst crimes a person can commit are excluded. I agree with the many Members who have signalled that adopting Lord Robertson’s excellent amendment, Lords amendment 1, wholesale would be the best approach to uphold our international reputation.
On the issue that Ministers say the Bill addresses—the wellbeing of veterans—it also falls well short. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) mentioned Lord Boyce’s remarks, and I will reiterate them. A presumption against prosecution helps no one. The issue that needs to be dealt with is the investigation and reinvestigation of cases. The Lords amendments provide a mechanism for dealing with those reinvestigations, yet the Government are opposing them. At the same time, Ministers propose to make it harder for veterans to bring cases against the MOD and oppose any attempt to provide a duty of care to ex-service personnel involved in legal cases.
Without the Lords amendments, the Bill fails across the board and falls well short. Instead of playing politics with human rights, the Government should guarantee access to justice for all victims of war, from the victims and survivors of war crimes to those ex-service personnel failed by the MOD. That is why I will vote for the Lords amendments today.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Bill as it stands is frankly damaging to our armed forces, as it removes the protection of the law from many who have suffered injustice while serving our country, and it means war crimes may go unchallenged and that they might be dragged into the International Criminal Court.
As it stands, the Bill is bad for our international reputation and, indeed, for those who so gallantly protect our country because, unfortunately, it will stop people bringing legitimate cases of negligence, bullying and worse against the Ministry of Defence that are over six years old, while at the same time turning a blind eye to cases of war crimes and torture that are over five years old, all in the name of reducing the number of so-called vexatious cases.
In the case of Iraq, there have been 1,000 supposedly vexatious cases in the past 17 years. Of those, 330 have been settled—in other words, the Government have paid up and accepted liability. Some 414 remain ongoing—in other words, the Government have not applied for them to be struck out as being vexatious—and 217, only 217 out of 1,000, have been withdrawn or struck out. Many of them have been unmeritorious as opposed to vexatious, by which I mean they have been poorly pleaded or there have been errors of law. That is no surprise, because the Government have made savage cuts to legal aid. Many soldiers do not have law degrees and are traumatised by the experience about which they are bringing their case. There were about 10 unmeritorious cases in 17 years, which is fewer than the number of Government cases that have been rejected in court. Perhaps the Government should put their own house in order.
Let us also remember that, at the moment, the courts will not hear cases of historic facts unless they pass the test of being equitable—in other words, that fairness requires it—so we do not need the six-year limit. What is more, claimants face substantial costs to the Ministry of Defence in cases that are found to be unmeritorious, which is a clear deterrent.
We now have a situation in which the MOD can delay evidence in the name of national security and evade prosecution for negligence or worse. A constituent came to me who had been on an exercise with the military, and he had been hooded, stripped and tortured. He ended up with post-traumatic stress disorder, alcoholism and basically a lifetime of mental health problems, and we are still trying to get compensation. Clearly his case would be ruled out by the Bill.
There is the famous case of an Army cadet who was sexually abused by her instructor, and she did not bring it up until she was an adult. Again, the six-year rule would have meant that her case was not heard. There is the case of a Territorial Army officer who was subjected to racist abuse over many years, to which his superiors turned a blind eye. That case would not have been heard under the six-year limit. The cases go on.
I have no hesitation in supporting the Lords amendments on the duty of care, on the facility for cases to be reopened by the Director of Service Prosecutions when new evidence emerges, and on the facility for members of the armed forces to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence.
Finally and crucially, the Bill bans the prosecution of war crimes, including murder and torture, after five years, which is appalling, especially as it can take decades to investigate some of these crimes. We all know what happened after the second world war, for instance. The Government can sit on evidence for years. In a particular case in Britain, which involved the execution of unarmed civilians by British special forces, they sat on the evidence for more than a decade. We cannot justify a blanket pardon for war crimes and torture after five years of their happening, otherwise we will end up in the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
I very much support the amendments from the Lords that try to make the Bill a bit better. In essence, though, my view is that the Bill was not necessary and that it should have been completely scrapped, which is why I voted against it in the first place. None the less, I urge Members to vote for the Lords amendments today.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
I followed the process of this Bill through the House and, at every point, I voted against it and stood in opposition to it. The Bill has deeply worrying implications for Britain’s standing worldwide and risks further eroding the rights of those living in countries where Britain has a military presence.
The Bill is completely contrary to the values that I hold dear: justice, the rule of law, human rights, peace and a total abhorrence of the inhuman treatment of fellow human beings. I am glad that these views are shared with my colleagues in the other place who voted overwhelmingly across parties in support of measures to address some of the most concerning elements of the Bill.
Although the Government made a belated U-turn yesterday on the exclusion of torture, genocide and crimes against humanity from the Bill, that has been a disappointing and partial change. The Government’s amendment failed to exclude war crimes from the scope of the Bill. By choosing not to exclude from the Bill crimes identified by article 8.2 of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court in its totality, the Government’s partial amendment will leave many crimes—inhuman treatment, biological experiments, murder, mutilation and cruel treatments, to name just a few—subject to the presumption against prosecution in the Bill. That was clearly not the Lords’ intention when passing Lords amendment 1. We do not send our troops abroad to commit war crimes. We must hold our armed forces to higher standards than this and be willing to prosecute any cases where their behaviour falls short of our shared values. It will be a grave mistake to fail to exclude these war crimes from the five-year limit and will send a signal that we condone crimes of this nature.
Without these Lords amendments, the Bill would effectively legislate to decriminalise war crimes committed by our armed forces. That would be a grave injustice and a moral stain on our international reputation, and would put UK service personnel at risk both in the field and of prosecution in the International Criminal Court. It is for those reasons that I will vote to support Lords amendment 1, tabled by former Defence Secretary and NATO Secretary-General, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, which excludes torture, genocide, crimes against humanity and, crucially, war crimes from the scope of the Bill.
That brings me to Lords amendment 4, which would eliminate the time limit for current or former service personnel to bring claims against the Ministry of Defence. During discussions with veterans and the Royal British Legion in Wales, they voiced a deep-seated opposition to the Government’s proposal on this matter, which would weaken the key avenue for service personnel to access proper compensation by introducing an unnecessarily brief time window for them to pursue claims. This is inappropriate as some conditions can take years to manifest or be properly diagnosed, such as post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Royal British Legion has rightly expressed grave concerns that the six-year longstop could be a breach of the armed forces covenant. The Government proposal does nothing to protect service personnel or veterans or to expand their rights, but rather serves to shield the Government from criticism. It is vital that we take steps to protect the wellbeing of soldiers and allow them to exert their rights. For these reasons, I support Lords amendment 4, which would remove any restrictions on the time limits for actions brought against the Crown by service personnel.
In a statement following my vote against the Bill on First Reading, I said that, in my view, it undermines the UK’s good standing in defence of human rights and the historically leading role that we have played in the fight against international war crimes. While I welcome and support the Lords amendments and urge others to vote for them, I have not changed my view of this Bill. Serious problems remain, and while supporting the Lords amendments, I cannot support this Bill in its entirety as, in the words of Justice, it would go against
“the interests of service personnel, victims and the UK’s reputation as a country governed by the rule of law.”
As my colleague Baroness Chakrabarti, who has taken a principled stand and fought tirelessly against this Bill from day one, has said, this Bill is a violation
“not just of human rights, but of the rule of law itself and that fundamental principle of equality before the law…which is supposed to be a principle that even conservatives hold.”
Leo Docherty
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank colleagues from across the House this afternoon for their considered contributions. I have listened with humility and interest, and I deeply appreciate the constructive tone from the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), and colleagues on both sides of the House.
A number of colleagues expressed concern about the list of excluded crimes, including the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).
Let me make it clear that the presumption against prosecution created by part 1 does not prevent investigations or prosecutions for any category of crimes. It creates a higher threshold for prosecution, not a bar. It therefore does not prevent the UK from investigating crimes of any nature, whether they are in or out of the list of excluded offences in schedule 1. I have listened with sympathy to the concerns of many hon. Members that failing to expand the list of excluded offences makes UK service personnel more likely to face prosecution by the International Criminal Court, but it does not. Cases are only admissible to the ICC when a state is unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute, so the presumption against prosecution created in part 1 does not prevent investigation, and cases can still be prosecuted. We will therefore not be considered by the ICC to be unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute war crimes.
Several Members expressed concern about the duty of care, including the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). The Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its duty of care for service personnel and veterans, for whom there already exists a comprehensive range of legal, pastoral, welfare and mental health support, details of which can be found, as I have mentioned, in the Secretary of State’s written ministerial statement of 13 April. The Lords amendment carries a risk of unintended consequences, including a possible increase in litigation, which would be contrary to the Bill’s objectives. I can reassure the House that the MOD and the Office of Veterans’ Affairs work closely across all Government Departments and the devolved Administrations, and with charities, to ensure that the welfare needs of our service personnel and veterans are met. We have come a long way on the welfare provisions for veterans and our service personnel, but we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that we get this absolutely right.
This is without the scope of the Bill, but I feel obliged to reiterate my earlier comments about our approach to Northern Ireland veterans. In response to inquiries from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Upper Bann, my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and others, I can confirm that I expect, with confidence, legislation very soon from the Northern Ireland Office, and I look forward to keeping hon. Members updated in that regard.
I hope that I have been able to provide additional clarity and reassurance on the many issues that have been covered this afternoon. I hope that the House will agree to the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1, and disagree to Lords amendment 2, 4 and 5. I hope that the whole House agrees that the Bill will deliver an important step forward in the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Government to give our finest defence asset—our people—and our veteran community the protection they so richly deserve. I commend it to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am expecting Divisions—more than one. I remind everybody that there will be eight minutes for the first Division and five minutes for each Division subsequently.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (o) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
After Clause 7
Investigation of allegations related to overseas operations
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.—(Leo Docherty.)
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
That concludes consideration of Lords amendments to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill. I suspend the House for three minutes.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak in the debate and add my tribute to those made by Members across the House. I think we have all been moved by the warm and touching tributes made today, and I hope that the Queen and the royal family will be able to take some comfort from the deep affection for Prince Philip in this House.
I have particularly enjoyed listening to some of the anecdotes about visits and meetings spanning many years of the Duke’s service. Service was, indeed, a great theme of the Duke of Edinburgh’s life. It was a constant in all our lives and an example that I believe will live on into the future. It was public service rooted in a profound sense of duty typical of the wartime generation—the Duke had served with great bravery and distinction in world war two—and for Prince Philip, that deep sense of public service was expressed in many ways. First and foremost, he served the Queen. He was, as she said, her “strength and stay” throughout their life together. He also played an important role in supporting his children and the royal family as a whole, and I have been deeply moved by many of the tributes about his role, which has been spelled out in some detail in the media over the weekend.
It is also worth remembering that he used his role to support a wide range of very important causes, and I would like to focus on two examples. The first is Prince Philip’s work to protect the environment and encourage conservation, which was and continues to be hugely important. It is worth remembering that he helped to establish the World Wide Fund for Nature and then served as its president for 20 years. He championed environmentalism before it achieved the prominence it has today.
The second very important area, which has been drawn out by some Members, is the importance of young people to him. That was demonstrated quite simply by the time he spent putting young people at ease on visits—a skill that showed real empathy and an understanding of younger people—but it is probably best summed up by the lasting contribution he made through establishing the Duke of Edinburgh’s award. I hope that the award and many other aspects of his work, particularly his work to protect the environment, will thrive and provide a fitting legacy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said.
He was a unique public servant. For British people, the Commonwealth and across the world, Prince Philip made an incredible contribution. He was, for many of us, a constant throughout our lives. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, and on behalf of my constituents, I would like to offer our deepest condolences to the Queen and the entire royal family at this difficult time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
A few months after 9/11, I went to a service in New York where one of our Ministers, Jack Straw, was representing the Government, and he read those poignant words on behalf of the Queen:
“Grief is the price we pay for love.”
Anybody who has lost someone knows how poignant those words are, and we all stand along with the Queen, the country and the Commonwealth in grieving the loss of His Royal Highness.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Well said, Mr Deputy Speaker. Indeed, what is left to say after so many distinguished contributions? Let me start by sending my thoughts and prayers to Her Majesty the Queen, as so many others have, on behalf of the people of East Worthing and Shoreham. I add my three-penn’orth to this Humble Address without any particular first-hand knowledge of His Royal Highness, other than having met him at Buckingham Palace receptions, where I am sure we can all attest to his wit and occasionally eyebrow-raising humour. Alas, I never hosted His Royal Highness in my constituency in the last 24 years, but like so many people, I have admired his constancy, his dedication and his public service from afar and have felt truly personally saddened that he is no longer there; I have been surprised at the extent of that.
So often at funerals we find out so much about a person after they have left us from the tributes of friends and family. Extraordinarily for someone who was so much in the public eye, I have learnt so much from the saturation coverage that I have welcomed over the last few days, and it is virtually all good. It has been a welcome change from the negative, sensationalising and often conflict-seeking docu-soaps that hit the headlines on certain TV networks, to which, unfairly, members of the royal family can never really reply. The Duke of Edinburgh, above all, would have hated the tsunami of attention and all the fuss and the tributes that he is receiving now, like it or not—all the “yak, yak, yak; come on, get a move on,” as he once chided the Queen aboard the Britannia.
The outstanding theme of the accounts of the last few days has of course been the Duke’s unstinting and constant support for the Queen—“my rock”, as she called him. Indeed, it has been an outstanding partnership, and even the most hardened republican cannot but be moved by the obvious intensity of their devotion to each other in their engagement photos, which is echoed so uncannily and undiminished in the diamond wedding anniversary photos 70 years later, as if there were just a few days between them.
However, there was so much more to the Duke than as consort to Her Majesty, and I do not just mean the extraordinary success of the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme, which virtually everybody in this House seems to have been on or to have had children who have done it. I will not repeat all the figures, but one thing that is less known is that it was designed to be disability-inclusive, at his insistence, years before disability discrimination legislation was ever a thing.
The Duke was associated with 837 organisations, with a particular focus on young people and getting them active outdoors. Those organisations included the National Playing Fields Association, now Fields in Trust, of which he was president from 1948 until 2013—65 years. It was a long-term and active hands-on commitment because early in his royal life, the Duke was said to be appalled to see children playing in the street instead of in green spaces and it became his desire to improve the situation for young people in urban areas. He raised a huge amount of money for that charity, and he recognised the power of the media to help in that fundraising. He struck up a connection with Frank Sinatra, no less, and provided the introduction to the recording of “If Only She Looked My Way”, recognised as the first charity single, which helped clear the debts of the charity by 1952.
We know about the Duke’s extraordinary, courageous military achievements and about his sporting achievements, and he was ahead of his time in so many other ways. He was a recognised environmentalist before even David Attenborough recognised that he was an environmentalist. He was an accomplished broadcaster, particularly on issues concerning technology, science and space, and of course he took a particular interest in the NASA projects.
The Duke ran the estates at Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral, and left them in a much enriched state. He was the force behind the conversion of the private chapel at Buckingham Palace into the Royal Collection to allow the public in to share the many masterpieces in that collection. He was, by all accounts, an accomplished artist himself, and commissioned over 2,000 works of art. He was a deeply serious and intellectual man, for which he is not appreciated. He loved debate, and to question and to challenge, as a result of which he set up the St George’s House conference resource at Windsor castle in 1966, hosting many distinguished speakers and debates. I was privileged to have been part of that at one time. And, of course, he was worshipped as a god on the island of Tanna in Vanuatu in the south Pacific. The Queen is merely an earthly sovereign; the Duke of Edinburgh was a god.
On one thing, however, the Duke was wrong, and I will finish on this. Because of his slightly nomadic upbringing, leading him often to give “no fixed abode” when signing visitors books, he claimed:
“My trouble is that I’ve never properly belonged anywhere.”
I think the outstanding outpouring of respect, affection, admiration and genuine sorrow at his passing from every corner of the globe since his death has shown that he actually truly belonged everywhere. In the often unfashionable places he visited, the many under-appreciated causes he supported, the impressions he left on the many millions of people whose lives he touched and in the hearts of the family, the nation and the Commonwealth he served so unflinchingly over the last almost century, our biggest tribute to him must be to just get on with it. We give thanks for an extraordinary life lived to the full, and may he rest in peace.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call John Howell on the video link, I will just say that we have 53 Members who now want to contribute and they are all on the Government side, so can I encourage people to take less than the three minutes so that we get everybody in? If they take two and a bit minutes, we should do it.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
We always remember where we were when significant events occur, and last Friday at midday I was at my constituency home in Ramsgate. I was on the telephone with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), and I heard a gasp and an expletive down the line—he had just heard—and he then related to me the sad news. That was a moment in time that I will not forget. I knew at once that a page in our nation’s history had turned.
We give thanks for a long life very well lived, and for Prince Philip’s steadfast support for our gracious Queen. We give our thanks to a devoted servant to our country and thus to all of us, a stalwart of our Commonwealth and a stable rock in a very troubled and changing world. He was a towering character who has always been there throughout the lives of every one of us in this Chamber. Indeed, he married the then Princess Elizabeth in 1947, before all but a handful of Members of this place were even born.
It was surprising how little we knew of the man during his life. I had the privilege of meeting him twice, and both events had their classic moments that only Prince Philip could bring to an occasion, but those must be stories for another day. I feel that I have learned so much more about him over these past 80 hours, thanks to the extensive coverage in the media since Friday—coverage that I believe has been exemplary, well researched and properly respectful. I did not previously know that he was present in Tokyo bay when the Japanese signed the instrument of surrender, or the extent to which he was virtually stateless as a young child. I knew little of his exemplary wartime naval service being mentioned in dispatches, or about the true depth of his involvement with the charities he was associated with or the varied interests he had. I do now.
The nation must turn now to considering a fitting memorial to that great life. Obviously, statues are being proposed, but my suggestion, as a permanent working symbol of his life and interests, is for a new multiple-use ship bearing his name, for use as a training ship, a humanitarian vessel, a mobile embassy and a UK trade platform, proudly designed and built in the UK as an overdue replacement for the royal yacht Britannia, which he loved so deeply. It would be a true complementary vessel to the carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. This should not be fanciful. It would reflect this country’s historical attachment to the sea, Prince Philip’s love of the naval service and his commitment to youth training. It would be a continuing glue for the Commonwealth, a proper platform to promote global Britain and a secure location for the royal family. I hope that that can have wider national debate and proper consideration. Rest in peace, sir, and may the thoughts and blessings from all across my South Thanet constituency be upon Her Majesty.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have 87 minutes left and 43 more speakers, so if Members could speak for under three minutes that will help others get in.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I am here today to express the heartfelt condolences of the people of Derbyshire Dales to Her Majesty and her family on the death of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. He was truly a man among men, in times of both war and peace. His steadfast sense of duty and public service, as well as his sense of humour, will be missed in the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, and internationally. His was truly a lifetime of service.
A 2018 YouGov survey revealed that no fewer than 22% of those polled had either seen or met Prince Philip. This would have been in the course of the many thousands of official engagements he had carried out up and down the country. I was one of those many people who saw him on such an occasion. It was in August 1974; I was just nine years old at the time, on a family holiday in Scotland. We saw Prince Philip from the roadside as he visited the Highlands Fabricators yard on the Cromarty firth, which was manufacturing oil rigs for use by BP in the North sea, something on which British engineering had led the way. This visit was just one of many examples of Prince Philip’s lifelong interest in, and commitment to, British engineering, excellence and innovation.
I asked one of my constituents in Derbyshire Dales, a Royal Marine to whose unit—41 Commando—Prince Philip had presented its colours in 1961, how he would describe the Duke. “As a hero”, he responded simply. That is, in many ways, a very apt description of Prince Philip. Of course, he was a decorated war hero in the international global struggle to defeat national socialism and fascism. He had both witnessed, and helped to make, history. Together with Her Majesty the Queen, Prince Philip has been part of the cement that held together this great United Kingdom. On his watch, Britain emerged from the grey post-war years to be the vibrant, buoyant and multi-faceted country that we are today. The people from Derbyshire Dales are grateful for this life. God save the Queen.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have just about an hour left, and Members can see that there are still names on the call list, so I encourage people to speak for two minutes or less, please.
COP26
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must say that this is the first time I have ever had the chance to get my red pen out and add to my notes, rather than having to scrub notes out frantically. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee.
COP26 is clearly the most important COP since Paris, and it is critical for our net zero commitments. It is a chance for the UK to be on the world stage, but we have to ask whether matters are in hand. If we look at the Cabinet Office estimates, I would suggest not. We know that the Cabinet Office COP26 budget for this financial year was revised down from £216 million to just £22 million due to the postponement, but what has been achieved to date with that expenditure? What will the future budget look like? We do not really know, which in itself shows the entire farce of the estimates process.
Has the memorandum of understanding between Police Scotland and the UK Government been signed off, underwriting the estimated £180 million policing cost? Where is the budget line for that? We can still recall that the Home Office did not stump up for the Lib Dems’ party conference in Glasgow in 2013, which left Police Scotland £800,000 out of pocket. It is critical that the Police Scotland budget is not affected.
As a member of the BEIS Committee, I was pleased to take part in an inquiry about the COP26 preparations. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) has covered it admirably, but I will reiterate some key recommendations that need to be considered. First, we need to ensure that the correct resource allocation from the civil service is in place. That needs a real focus from the Cabinet Office, not its current obsession with Union units. In the last couple of years, the Cabinet Office has also been a propaganda unit—first for Brexit, now the Union. Let us get a focus on COP26, which is a real priority.
We need to put in place measurable outcomes of success. The Committee has also suggested that parliamentary engagement needs to extend to the devolved legislatures, as well as the Westminster process. That brings us to the fact that leaders and relevant Ministers of the devolved Governments should form part of the UK delegation, as well as Opposition MPs. Let us show inclusivity as part of COP26, whatever Governments elsewhere do—but that will take real leadership from the COP26 President, given that we know the Prime Minister’s view on Scottish devolution.
We need the UK Government to set the sixth carbon budget as soon as possible, incorporating the recommendations of the Committee on Climate Change in full. Serious consideration needs to be given to resetting the fifth carbon budget, which currently is not aligned to net zero.
Something else that I will throw into the mix is reconsidering the cuts to the foreign aid budget. As the right hon. Member for Ludlow pointed out, a lot of finance needs to be mobilised to help developing countries. We have started to debate the damage and loss going forward. It sends completely the wrong message that the UK, as the host country, is cutting its foreign aid to the poorest countries in the world.
Clearly covid has been an overriding UK Government priority, and they have to deal with an emergency, but it feels as if the extra time gained from the postponement has not been put to full use. We need more information on the preparations. Certainly we need some kind of decision-making timeline made available that ties in with public health assessments, and plans to ensure that no countries are left out going forward. We really need more progress on the agreement over the nationally determined contributions. It is critical that all spend associated with the preparations is transparent. There can be no more lucrative contracts for friends and cronies.
Leading by example also means having proper domestic policies in place, just as the Scottish Government have. It is a terrible state of affairs that we are still awaiting the heat and building strategy and we are still awaiting the hydrogen strategy. It should be noted that the Scottish Government have a 5 GW hydrogen production target, which is the same as the UK’s, so Scotland is showing much more ambition. Again, Scotland has a transport decarbonisation plan in place for a net zero target of 2035, but we are still awaiting the UK Government’s transport decarbonisation plan.
Without these key policies, there is no net zero strategy, and policies without funding commitments are effectively redundant. While there is a 10-point plan with a figure of 600,000 heat pump installations a year, this means nothing without a funded programme to back it up. That programme needs to be aligned with energy-efficient installations and should start targeting off-grid properties. There are 3,000 deaths a year in the UK related to fuel poverty, so the UK Government also need to invest far more directly in energy efficiency and demonstrate a net zero transition that will not push up energy bills and create more fuel poverty.
When it comes to transport, Scotland can demonstrate the world’s first hydrogen double-decker buses. The Scottish Government have facilitated orders for electric and hydrogen buses from Alexander Dennis Ltd. Where is the UK Government’s national bus strategy? This is the type of leadership and joined-up thinking that is lacking at the moment.
I would ask the UK Government to be bold, and to abandon nuclear. This is not going to be the technology saviour they demonstrate to the rest of the world. We still cannot deal with nuclear waste, so we really do need to move away from this. Ahead of COP26, they should give sign-off for pumped-storage hydro. Floating offshore wind, green hydrogen, and wave and tidal technologies are the renewable technologies to focus on, so can we confirm ring-fenced contracts for difference pots for those? We should look at innovation in power purchase agreements for smaller marine projects to allow them to get to market.
Those are technologies that the UK and in particular Scotland, as the host country, can show to the world and be part of a coherent plan for an energy strategy. We need to be able to demonstrate it as part of the overall plan to lead other countries and make COP26 a real success. There is a lot of work to do in domestic policy and a lot of work in the negotiations that lie ahead of COP26 to make it a success.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just for everybody’s information, the wind-ups will start no later than 6.28 pm with Deidre Brock. There will then be shadow Minister Matthew Pennycook at 6.38 pm, the COP26 President at 6.48 pm, and Darren Jones at 6.58 pm.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With the leave of the House, I will put the Question on motions 3 to 7 together.
Supplementary Estimates 2020-21 (Army) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2021, modifications in the maximum numbers in the Reserve Land Forces set out in Supplementary Votes A 2020-21, HC 1126, be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1 and 3 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.
Supplementary Estimates 2020-21 (Air) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2021, a number not exceeding 36,400 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service.
Estimates 2021-22 (Navy) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2022, a number not exceeding 38,900 all ranks be maintained for Naval and Marine Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2021-22, HC 1125.
Estimates 2021-22 (Army) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2022, a number not exceeding 108,420 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2021-22, HC 1125.
Estimates 2021-22 (Air) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2022, a number not exceeding 36,400 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2021-22, HC 1125.—(Scott Mann.)
Estimates, Excesses, 2018-19
[Relevant document: Sixth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Excess Votes 2018-19, HC 243.]
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2019:
resources, not exceeding £312,093,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for current purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229.—(Scott Mann.)
Estimates, Excesses, 2019-20
[Relevant document: Forty-fourth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Excess Votes 2019-20, HC 1205.]
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2020:
(1) resources, not exceeding £8,280,607,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for current purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229,
(2) resources, not exceeding £32,332,000, be authorised to make good excesses for use for capital purposes as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229, and
(3) a sum, not exceeding £3,711,646,000 be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on the use of resources authorised by Parliament as set out in Statement of Excesses 2019-20 and Late Statement of Excesses 2018–19, HC 1229.—(Scott Mann.)
Supplementary Estimates 2020-21
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2021:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £265,361,609,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1168, HC 1215, HC 1227, HC 1231 and HC 1251,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £40,953,201,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £174,422,672,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Scott Mann.)
Estimates, Vote on Account 2021-22
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2022:
(1) resources, not exceeding £345,682,776,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 1167, HC 1171, HC 1214, HC 1228, HC 1230, HC 1234 and HC 1254,
(2) resources, not exceeding £53,780,396,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a sum, not exceeding £364,923,586,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Scott Mann.)
Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Supplementary Estimates 2020-21, Excesses 2018-2019, Excesses 2019-20 and Vote on Account 2020-21;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch bring in the Bill.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading
Jesse Norman accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2019, 31 March 2020, 31 March 2021 and 31 March 2022; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for the years ending 31 March 2020, 31 March 2021 and 31 March 2022; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the years ending with 31 March 2019, 31 March 2020 and 31 March 2021.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 273).
Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
There is nothing inevitable about high unemployment. Even when the storm has raged as violently as it has in the last 12 months, we have seen what the Government can achieve. Twelve months ago, the term “furlough” was completely unknown to us. Today, more than 30 million people have had most of their wages paid by the Government for most of the year.
To me, the most moving part of the Chancellor’s statement earlier was from the OBR—that it had revised its forecast that unemployment would peak at 11.9% and estimated that Government action had saved 1.8 million jobs in this country. That matters to me personally because, when I made my maiden speech on 24 February last year, I closed by saying that the jobs and livelihoods of my constituents would
“guide my work in this House.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 88.]
That has not changed.
There are three issues I want to touch on this evening. First, I want to talk about what this Budget means for female employment, which I have looked at carefully in my role as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women and work. There are different reasons why women’s employment has been particularly affected by the crisis, but some of it is sectoral. Hospitality, retail, leisure and the beauty industry employ disproportionate numbers of women and have been particularly hard hit. In this Budget, every business in those sectors can claim a restart grant of some kind, whether it is £6,000 or up to £18,000. Taken together with the continuation of the furlough, that will be a huge factor in sustaining and rebuilding opportunities for women in the labour market.
The second point I want to raise is linked to training and apprenticeships. The kickstart scheme, which we heard about last year, was directly focused on young people and their opportunities, but today’s announcement went wider. It links apprenticeships to the lifetime skills guarantee and incentivises businesses to offer apprenticeships irrespective of age. That is hugely significant. It is fair to say that, whenever long-term structural unemployment has taken root in any period since the second world war, Governments of whatever party have tried and failed to tackle it. The reason for that has always been the long-term attrition of workers’ skills. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that any Government have put training and skills at the front and centre of the recovery package, and I welcome that.
The jobs that exist in 10 years’ time will depend on our choices today, their impact on the labour market and our readiness to react to changing circumstances. The super deduction, the offering to innovators through R&D tax credits, the visa reforms for highly-skilled workers and the work on productivity through the Help to Grow scheme are all welcome. I represent a part of the world that sits at the heart of the—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry Laura, but we have to leave it there.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
In this Budget, the Chancellor and everyone in Her Majesty’s Treasury have pulled out all the stops, left no stone unturned and directed the enormous financial firepower of the Government at building back better. But before we can do that, we have to get through the next few months, as millions more vaccines are administered and businesses prepare to open.
The restart grants will be an enormous lifeline to so many local businesses—gyms such as FX Fitness Experience; salons and barbers such as Jack Jones; and pubs such as the Hapton Inn and the Crooked Billet. They now have a date to reopen and Government support to do it.
However, the Chancellor has also been honest about the economic impact that coronavirus has had. When I was elected in December 2019, yes, it was to level up and give Burnley and Padiham the Government focus they deserve, but it was also to ensure that our economy was properly managed—not the reckless spending that was on offer from the Labour leadership, but Conservative management, which meant that we entered this economic crisis in a way that has allowed us to wrap our arms around the country. That same management will ensure that we can do the same again when the next crisis hits.
It is with that in mind that, as a low-tax Conservative, I agree with the tax measures announced today. While this Budget keeps taxes low, with things such as the VAT reduction sustained and alcohol and fuel duty frozen, it also begins the task of repairing the public finances, which we must do. It strikes the right balance, paving the way for corporation tax to increase on businesses that are making healthy and sustainable profits, but ensuring that losses can be carried back for longer, and it provides much-needed support to our SMEs through a reduced tax rate.
Then we have the announcement of the super deduction. For areas such as Burnley, where we have a significant manufacturing sector, that could be transformational. It means that local businesses in everything from aerospace to construction are incentivised to invest in new equipment and new machinery, boosting productivity, creating jobs and powering our local recovery. We should not under-estimate the impact any of that will have.
Finally, I turn to the levelling-up agenda, which I care deeply about. Just a few weeks ago, I was on the BBC’s “Politics North West”, and the shadow Business Minister said that when Labour was in government, it invested in the cities. As this Budget shows, this Government are investing in the towns, too. Nothing embodies that more than the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund. These two funds will allow Burnley and Padiham to bid for tens of millions of pounds to regenerate our town centre, boost the high street, improve our infrastructure and make our area a place that people want to live, work and invest. As this Budget shows—
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Although I will try to be more articulate, all I can say to begin with is that this is a brilliant Budget. It is transformational, dynamic, hopeful and inspirational, and it is the basis to change lives.
Colleagues have talked at great length about various parts of the Budget, but I would like to concentrate on a number of factors that affect my constituency. Page 60 of the Red Book refers to the community ownership fund: a £150 million fund to help ensure that communities across the UK can buy local facilities that benefit the people in their areas. I quote:
“In exceptional cases up to £1 million of matched funding will be available to help establish a community-owned sports club or buy a sports ground at risk of loss from the community.”
That could have been written for Gigg Lane. Gigg Lane is central to Bury’s identity. It is a heritage asset, a cultural asset and a sporting asset. This Chancellor has delivered the opportunity for my community—and hopefully my council will come on board—to bid to ensure that Gigg Lane is owned by the community for the people of Bury in perpetuity.
But it does not stop there with the fund. Not only can a community group bid for a sporting asset like that—it can also bid for theatres. As you are an MP very close by, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know this, but in Ramsbottom in my constituency there is a theatre, Co-op Hall, one of only five in the country, built in 1870 as a court meeting place. It has its original features inside. It is a unique cultural jewel within the country, let alone my region. Local community activists are working together hoping to find a way to buy this asset to create a meeting space for people of all ages, sexes, backgrounds, disabilities, whatever it is, and this offers a chance to do that.
My colleagues have spoken articulately about some of the wide-ranging policies that will benefit millions upon millions of people within our country, but this hopeful prospectus gives communities such as mine the chance to change lives and to change and impact how we feel about our areas. If the pandemic has done one thing, it has made everyone aware of how much pride we take in where we are from, and this Budget reinforces that.
Like the constituencies of a number of colleagues, Bury thankfully has priority status for the levelling-up fund. I have already started speaking to the Chancellor about investment in the world-famous Bury market. Hopefully, with the funding of £125,000 that has been provided, we will not only have Gigg Lane and an 1870s theatre but the world-famous Bury market, supporting our fantastic traders and bringing prosperity to the town. I congratulate the Chancellor on a fantastic, brilliant Budget that gives hope to my constituents.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I want to concentrate quickly on three key points today. First, I thought that this was an excellent Budget, which was about recovery, delivering on our manifesto and economic credibility in the long term.
On the recovery, I support the extension of the support and the grants through to September this year. That is really important for all our businesses and for people in employment locally. The VAT support—5% rising to 12.5%—will also give our hospitality sector real time to get on its feet. I ally that with a campaign that I was involved in, along with many Conservative Members, to ensure that our pubs and clubs could get back to recovery with no increase in beer, spirits or wine duty. That is really important. Fuel duty is hugely important for communities such as mine, because those taxes are particularly regressive on people just going back into work at the moment, so those measures are absolutely vital and very welcome.
On delivering the manifesto, it is quite clear that we are doing a cracking job. The cash is there for the police and the NHS. There is a cash increase for schools, as well as cash for the environment—that is really important —and for levelling up, and I will touch briefly on what that means for the north-east today. We have seen that great new freeport in Teesside. We are seeing the Treasury coming to Darlington. That is really important and recognises how important our towns are. Hopefully, that will feed through into some of the Treasury thinking more broadly. I hope that that boosts our campaign for the A68 upgrade, which I am working on with several other Members from across the north-east. I thank the Chancellor for ensuring that that cash going into the NHS means that Shotley Bridge gets the extra £10 million that I have been campaigning for over the last few days.
This is about credibility; we have had a really honest approach from the Chancellor today, outlining where the cash has to come from. That is in stark contrast to the Labour party, which for years banged stealth taxes on our constituents against their wishes. Until the Opposition learn that lesson, they will never be in government again.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Will those leaving the Chamber please do so in a covid-friendly manner, particularly in order for the Minister to take his position?
Armed Forces Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsMonday 8th February 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
I would like to start by paying tribute to Captain Sir Tom Moore on behalf of the people of Stockport. Sir Tom sadly passed away last week, but he represented the best of Britain and gave joy to millions of us during the lowest points of the crisis. He served with distinction during the second world war, and as we debate the Bill, I would like to thank Captain Sir Tom and all the armed forces for their service, not least during this covid pandemic when their efforts have further helped to keep our country safe.
As well as keeping our citizens safe, the armed forces also help to pull our communities together. For example, in my constituency, I would also like to give a special mention to Army veteran Peter Millns of the Stockport branch of the Armed Forces and Veterans Breakfast Clubs. I had the wonderful opportunity to visit the club in March last year and meet the incredible people such as Peter who give their time to help run the club and provide such a worthy service. Peter is an inspirational individual. He is the driving force behind my local branch, helping to create a close-knit community for Stockport veterans. Peter is not unique, though. Liz Murray from the Stockport branch of the Royal British Legion also does so much to support our veteran community in the town. The help that the likes of Liz and Peter give to armed forces personnel past and present is vital, and it is never more important than at times like these, which are particularly challenging and can place an even greater burden on our veterans.
Voluntary organisations are amazing, but it should not be left to them to make up the shortfall in Government support. Too often, the armed forces covenant is not upheld and the promises made do not match the reality experienced by our service communities, from substandard housing to veterans’ mental health and social care. Just last week, a scathing report by the National Audit Office revealed that tens of thousands of troops live in “substandard accommodation” while the Ministry of Defence refuses to pay for £1.5 billion pounds worth of repairs and half the rooms in MOD barracks would fail to meet current building regulations. That is no way to treat those who have put their lives on the line to keep our country safe.
The Armed Forces Bill places a legal responsibility on councils to deliver on the covenant in the areas of housing, healthcare and education, but without providing any extra funding to do so. That commitment is even harder to keep when the likes of my local authority, Stockport Council, have not only faced repeated cuts and austerity for more than a decade but now face a shortfall of millions after the Government failed to deliver on their promise to fully fund local authorities for the cost of covid-19 and keeping the people of Stockport safe. A fair financial settlement for our local authorities is the only way that the likes of our serving and veteran armed forces personnel can continue to receive the support they deserve.
Indeed, it is only right that our armed forces, veterans and their families do not continue to experience any disadvantage when accessing services, as we have seen most recently on the housing issue. The sad reality, though, is that too many still face barriers to accessing the support they need. That is why this Government must go further and deliver the armed forces covenant in full. To ensure that that happens, this Bill should set measurable, national standards that would once and for all end the postcode lottery on the armed forces covenant.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Anthony Mangnall, I must inform the House that the wind-ups will start at 9.40 with Stephen Morgan, followed by Ben Wallace at 9.50. The question will then be put at 10 o’clock, and I apologise in advance to those Members who may not get in.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. First, may I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) for his incredibly brave speech?
This Bill enables our exceptional armed forces to exist and delivers our manifesto commitment and the vision of my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. It is a testament to his commitment to the armed forces and veterans, using this as an opportunity to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law.
While our brave men and women are supported in their service around the globe, that has not always been the case back at home. They have often had to join the back of the queue. Thankfully, that wrong will, in part, be righted by the Bill. Sadly, in recent days I have heard from a number of veterans in Darlington who have in the past failed to receive adequate access to local services upon their discharge. They have felt forgotten, their needs not understood. One of my constituents, who left the services in 2007, having served in Iraq and Northern Ireland, put it to me:
“The armed forces spend months and thousands of pounds turning civilians into soldiers. However, once leaving, it’s a quick handshake and off you pop.”
In preparing for tonight’s debate, I took the opportunity to discuss the Bill with my former colleague in legal practice, Michael Menzies-Baird, or Mingus to his pals. Mingus served as a soldier in Northern Ireland, defusing bombs, before retraining to become a litigation solicitor. He now gives up his free time to serve SSAFA, the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association. Mingus said to me:
“Enshrining the armed forces covenant in law is solely about fairness. The armed forces are sent worldwide whenever the nation requires us to serve, to give everything, putting our lives on the line to protect the UK. I was very lucky, but many of my colleagues have either not returned, done so with disabilities or suffer with PTSD having witnessed the horrors of war. They just want to be treated fairly and to have their efforts recognised—a little helping hand, rather than being ignored, which it has felt they have been for many, many years.”
I have also met Councillor Brian Jones, Darlington’s armed forces ambassador. He warmly welcomes the obligations that will be placed on local authorities. As he said, it is to do the right thing.
The Bill is welcomed by the armed forces community in Darlington precisely because it enshrines the armed forces covenant in law, ensuring protection and fair treatment for our armed forces community and imposing a legal duty on UK public bodies and local authorities to have due regard to the principles of the covenant, ensuring that armed forces personnel, veterans and their families are not disadvantaged because of or by their service when accessing key public services.
This Bill builds on the Government’s investment in the welfare of our armed forces and honours our manifesto pledge. I look forward to supporting the Bill this evening and continuing our commitment to those who serve as we work to protect those who have put their lives on the line to protect us.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Peter. You took less than four minutes. Everybody remaining on the call list is a Government Member. While we will keep the time limit at four minutes, if Members are able to speak for less than four minutes, they will be helping those lower down the call list. I call Andrew Bowie.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
In Wantage and Didcot, I represent a constituency with a strong tradition of admiration for our armed services but also of service in them, including by some of my predecessors, one of whom was Airey Neave, who had a proud record of service in world war two. His immediate predecessor was Ralph Glyn, who fought in the first world war and was given a Military Cross. We have the Defence Academy at Shrivenham, and we have the 11 EOD & Search Regiment in Didcot. However, my admiration for the services came long before I became an MP. My dad served in the British Army for 18 years, and that left me with a close interest in what we do and how we treat our armed men and women.
The Bill has a lot in it to welcome. I have spoken to quite a number of people from the veteran community in my constituency, as well as to some serving personnel, and there is a lot that they welcome too, from the new Service Police Complaints Commissioner to allowing reserve forces to serve flexibly in the way that regular forces do. I heard particular praise for allowing the rescinding of judgments made in error; one person made the point to me that, particularly where judgments are done very quickly, mistakes can be made, and they thought that was a very welcome provision of the Bill. The extension of the posthumous pardons, often for crimes that should never have been crimes, provides at least some small relief to the family members who are still alive.
The armed forces covenant runs throughout the Bill, of course, and I welcome the “due regard” that will be paid in the areas of housing, health and education. The people I talked to suggested that those were the three areas where they most commonly saw complaints—either their own or those of colleagues. I hope that in time we will be able to extend it to other areas, and perhaps employment is one of the areas that has the strongest case.
I also think it would be good for us to extend this to national Government Departments in time. What we are doing with local authorities is very welcome, and I recognise that health, education and housing are in keeping with the Armed Forces Act 2011, but my general view on a lot of things that go on in the UK is that national Government Departments could and should lead by example. I recognise that there are challenges with that at this time, but I hope we can aspire to that in due course.
Overall, this is a very welcome Bill that builds on everything this Government have been doing, from the guaranteed interview scheme to the veteran’s railcard to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. None of us, unless they are a gallant Member of this House, has made the sacrifices that our armed forces do. Many of those sacrifices are out of sight of most of us, but they should not be out of mind, and with this Bill today we take an important step towards recognising that and giving them the respect and care they deserve.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Aaron Bell. I am not going to put the clock on you, Aaron. Just carry on talking, and I will stop you at 9.40 pm. If you stop earlier, we will go straight to the winding-up speeches.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in this debate and to follow so many distinguished contributions from so many hon. Members who have known service, either themselves or through their families, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), who gave us a speech that was brave, honest and full of integrity. He did not spare himself and he did not spare this House, and the whole House is much richer for his presence in it and his contribution here today.
This is a very good Bill that will be welcomed by my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am glad it has cross-party support. It renews the mandate for our armed forces, and I cannot be the only hon. Member somewhat awed by the fact that we are here today with a Bill that is necessary because of an Act that was passed in this place one third of a millennium ago, in 1689. The Bill of Rights is fundamental to our constitution and that of so many countries around the world, and this is a useful reminder of the supremacy of Parliament and where we have come from.
This Bill makes improvements to the service justice system, with a new independent mode of redress, and offers more support for reservists. However, like many colleagues, I want to focus on the armed forces covenant in this, its 10th anniversary year, and on clause 8 in particular. Members of the armed forces and their families simply must not be disadvantaged, particularly in the areas we are talking about today: healthcare, education and housing.
I recall that every time I went to visit my cousins when I was growing up, they seemed to be living somewhere else, all over the country, because their father was in the RAF. Now my sister and her husband are both serving in the senior service—they are both commanders in the Navy. There is a real burden for service families. Servicemen and women put their lives on the line, but I know how difficult service life is for their families too—having to re-establish themselves frequently, maybe every couple of years, in a new place, with a new school and new friends. We owe it to them to get this sort of thing right.
I also welcome the fact that the covenant covers veterans. We have many veterans’ organisations in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I highlight 58 Signal Squadron Association and the Tri Services and Veterans Support Centre, which works with SSAFA to support veterans who may have fallen on harder times. I have met them, and they have been doing great work throughout covid.
As I come towards the end of my shortened speech, speaking about veterans brings me nicely on to Captain Sir Tom Moore. Over 75 years ago, he served our nation with his service in India and Burma during the second world war, as part of that greatest generation, and then he served our nation again last year. Veterans such as him are truly the very best of British; I am proud to support them, to support servicemen and women and their families, to support the Government and to support this Bill.
European Union (Future Relationship) Bill
Nigel Evans ExcerptsWednesday 30th December 2020
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 View all European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 30 December 2020 - (30 Dec 2020)
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Four and a half years since the referendum, here we are. I accept we have left the European Union, we are in the transition period and at 11 o’clock tomorrow the shutters will finally come down on that chapter of European-British relations, but we have more than a thousand pages in an agreement and a hastily drafted Bill that runs to 80 pages, but that has to be read alongside many other pieces of legislation to be fully understood. We have five hours of debate today and I have three minutes, of which I have already used up half a minute, to talk about how poorly the Government are using this place.
This is not parliamentary scrutiny; in keeping with the festive season, it is much more of a charade. It does not give us the chance to do properly the job that we should be doing. This place does not always make good legislation, and this is clearly rushed legislation.
I have many concerns about this Bill. I have big concerns about Northern Ireland. As someone married to a dual Irish-British citizen, I spend a lot of time on the island of Ireland, and I see the real challenges of what is being put in place, and I saw the lack of thought about that land border right from the get-go in the run-up to the 2016 vote.
The security matters concern me, including SIS II, the European arrest warrant, and Europol. Services are not included in this agreement, despite, as others have said repeatedly, their accounting for a trade surplus with the EU. Professional qualifications and issues affecting musicians and others in the creative industries affect my constituency particularly. As a constituency Member for the City fringe, I am very concerned we still have not bedded in arrangements for financial services.
It is security arrangements that concern me most. They have been massively weakened by this agreement. I spent three years in government negotiating over access to SIS II, Prüm, the European arrest warrant, Europol, Eurojust and mutual legal aid. Those were all things that I dealt with day in, day out with our European neighbours, and we have thrown that away. We have thrown away so much of what we have been fighting, even in the last decade, to get much more closely involved with. We are now attempting to patch together, with more bureaucracy, the same things as we are giving up with this Bill.
The lack of scrutiny and the impossibility of reading the Bill properly make me unable to support it today. I am not voting against it, because I recognise that the votes in 2016 and 2019 give this Government licence to take us out of Europe, but I cannot be complicit in what is a wrecking ball in the name of sovereignty. We now need to drop the “remainer” and “leaver” labels. We need to unite to fill the gaps in the creative and performing arts, in the financial sector, in the recognition of professional qualifications and, above all, in security. It is because of those security measures, in particular, that I cannot be complicit with the Government and will abstain today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We had hoped to go to North Shropshire to listen to Owen Paterson, but the line has gone down. We do hope, Owen, if you are watching and listening, to come to you before the wind-ups a bit later on. We will try our level best.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) [V]
For the overwhelming majority of my constituents, this discussion brings no cheer. Confident, outward-looking Europeans, we genuinely struggle to understand why this country should want to turn away from our neighbours, and build barriers where there have been bridges. It is an inescapable fact that in every sphere we will be worse off next week. We ask the obvious questions of the Brexiteers. They promised frictionless trade: failed. They promised the exact same benefits: failed. They promised it would be easy and simple: well, here we are at the very last, having to rush through legislation because it is far from easy, far from simple. Of course, that suits the Prime Minister, who always fears scrutiny. In prioritising notional sovereignty over practical utility, he has made a fundamental error. We have seen in recent weeks in Kent what the failure to achieve frictionless trade can lead to. In future, any disagreement with France can lead to the same chaos. Yes, we are notionally free, but it is a pretty empty freedom that leaves our streets lined with innocent victims, trapped in vehicles without food or sanitation.
We have a poor choice today: nothing, or take the scraps that are on offer. Incredibly, some gullible Government Members who told the country that “we hold all the cards” somehow think that their tests have been met. Let us take data, the lifeblood of modern economies. What is on offer? A reprieve for a few months, while the EU considers a data adequacy application. Does it have to grant it? No, it does not. What is our recourse if, as it is fully entitled to do, it says no? Let us hear from Government Members—I suspect that there will be a deafening silence, because answer is there none. The truth is that we do not hold all the cards. Yes, we hold some, and hopefully sense will prevail and further agreements will be made.
That is my hope for the future. Bit by bit, sector by sector, we will rebuild that relationship that has been so damaged, and this time we will do it by explaining carefully and convincing the British people that sharing and co-operating with our neighbours is not surrendering something, but gaining much more, and that the noble vision of a continent united in peace and prosperity is worth striving for. In no area is that more true than in science, research and innovation. One of the opportunities is a pathway back into the hugely important Horizon Europe programme—important to the country but particularly important to my constituency. Of course, we will cease to have influence over its future direction—we have no seat at the table and no vote, and the payment mechanisms may well lead to perverse outcomes; that is the cost that the Conservatives have inflicted on us—but we can participate, and that is worth having.
It is for that reason that I will unwillingly vote for this thin agreement today—only because it is better than nothing. That is a low bar, but it is a start, and with the prospect of new management for our country—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Owen. Love to you and your family from all your friends here at Westminster. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)[V]
I am delighted that the Prime Minister has secured this trade deal with the EU. These negotiations have been followed intently by so many people in South Derbyshire, both individuals and businesses. I understand the strong feelings on both sides of the debate, but all that time ago, South Derbyshire and the country voted in the referendum to leave the EU, and as a democrat, I supported the Government in abiding by that vote, during the negotiations, and in securing a deal.
South Derbyshire is at the heart of our manufacturing midlands. As we have already heard, we have the Toyota factory that exports more than 80% of the cars made to Europe. My constituents also work in other great firms such as Bombardier and Rolls-Royce, and in their supply chains. Making things matters to us; exporting matters to us. A good trade deal was crucial, and that is what our Prime Minister, Lord Frost, and the negotiating team brought home for us.
There has been lots of chatter that the deal needed not only to be about free trade, but to get into the deep detail of trade barriers, equivalence, rules of origin and transition periods, and this deal has done that. I am an optimist. I listen to my constituents and to the needs of local businesses, and I kept a steady stream of information, requests, updates and encouragement flowing to the negotiating team, so that South Derbyshire’s needs were represented at the table and we got what we needed—for the automotive sector, no quotas; for rules of origin, a transition period of five and a half years, and no trade barriers. That is exactly what was needed. It keeps our factories competitive, and the cars flying off the production line. Even more importantly, the deal means that the South Derbyshire Toyota factory will be in the best position ever to bid for the next generation car in a few years’ time, and to secure work for the next 20-plus years.
I am hugely grateful for the phone calls and messages from No. 10 and the negotiating team, and for their assurances on these issues as the process was taking place, and on its conclusion. This is a good deal. It enables manufactured goods from South Derbyshire to be exported tariff-free and trade barrier free. It allows our farmers to export, and managers of businesses to move freely around their European-based companies. It means that we can drive in the EU without needing an additional special driving licence, and for UK passport holders already living in the EU, it allows their residency to continue. It allows visa-free travel for holiday makers, and in the more niche areas of exporting, such as organic farming, it allows for equivalence and continued unfettered exports.
I thank the Prime Minister, my friends at No. 10, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Treasury, who all helped and listened to my views and those of South Derbyshire businesses and residents. Finally, for my constituents who had so many concerns that this deal has put to bed, I say, “Rejoice!”
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For the wind-up I now call Rachel Reeves, who should finish no later than 2.22 pm.
Public Health
Nigel Evans Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am extremely grateful to Madam Deputy Speaker for my time.
I wish to talk specifically about the impact of a tier system on the leisure and hospitality industry in Leeds, which would equally apply to other areas under tier 3. As I know is the case for most MPs, the picture in my constituency is very grim. I have spoken to many business owners who have been forced to make devastating choices, considering letting staff go or even closing their business with Christmas just around the corner. Support for hospitality businesses is extremely limited. The furlough scheme is due to expire in January, workers are missing out on self-isolation support payments, and there is no comprehensive hospitality support package for businesses under tiers 2 or 3. Why did we not see an extension of furlough, improvements in the self-isolation scheme and sector-specific packages brought forward today? The £1,000 that was announced for wet pubs is not even worthy of being called a sticking plaster. The fact is, the majority of businesses cannot operate on this basis, with unsustainable income and ever-increasing debt. The lack of meaningful support from the Government is a massive kick in the teeth for those who work so hard to make their businesses safe and have taken additional measures at their own expense during this latest lockdown, trying to survive what has been an apocalyptic year for hospitality.
The one-off £20 per head additional restrictions grant for councils was welcome, but I am not sure how the Government expect local authorities to stretch out the grant for as long as they are in tier 3 when some areas have been under the strictest measures for many months with no end date in sight. So, again, a new extended support package for councils should have been announced today.
I am pleased, however, that as of today the Leeds infection rate is down significantly again, with nearly all wards across the city seeing significant decreases and an R rate far lower than that of many London boroughs. With a city-wide rate now at 200 and dropping every day, the measures are working, and I want to put on record my thanks to all those in Leeds making huge personal sacrifices so that this can happen.
The Leeds improvement shows the need for continued restrictions. However, we simply cannot afford to lose £1.7 million-worth of Government support for each seven days spent in tier 3, which is what will happen if the Government do not step up.
We are on the verge of a vaccine roll-out, but the Government are leaving swathes of the country to fall at the final hurdle. Currently, tier 3 areas, which are predominantly northern and urban, will get no more financial support than areas in tier 1. The only way to prevent mass job losses and business closures unlike anything we have seen before is to provide urgent economic support to both businesses and workers in tier 3 areas.
So I suggest the following changes to the Government, without which I cannot support the proposed tiers tonight. The unit of geography for tiers should have as its building block the upper-tier local authority for unitaries and districts for two-tier local authorities, not sub-regions or counties. I am also concerned that the 14-day review period is insufficiently flexible, as rates are falling fast and there could be an opportunity to get the economy going at an earlier stage, so I ask for a seven-day review period to make the system more responsive; the capacity to deliver that exists given that there will not be any negotiation. There should, too, be council engagement with Government to scale up lateral flow testing on a targeted basis, ensuring it is integrated with contact tracing and supports those who self-isolate. We will deliver this in the most effective way if it is done with councils, to ensure that we do not compromise roll-out of the vaccination and that resources are available to deliver it. I am also disappointed about communications on the tiers, with local leadership not having the opportunity to help lead communications as part of rebuilding trust and confidence.
That is what I call on the Government to do when we next have the review—it is clear that they will not accept any of my suggestions today, although I will delighted if the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announces that they will in his concluding remarks. Without the additional support and additional measures I have called for I cannot support what is happening today, and therefore I will not be taking part in the vote this evening.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There will now be a three-minute limit. I call Mark Jenkinson.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
The people of Sedgefield respect the difficulties and challenges involved in how best to control the virus. We understand that we must look after our vulnerable, and we understand that the picture is complex. As hon. Members would anticipate, I have had representations ranging from, “We shouldn’t be allowing anyone to do anything until we have a vaccine” through to “We’re infringing human rights by impinging on civil liberties.” We understand that this is complex. We also understand that the simpler the message, the more clarity can be delivered and therefore the more likely it is to be acted on.
Unfortunately, there are also things that we do not understand. The north-east has been grouped as a region with an edge running through the south of my constituency and all the way up to the Scottish border—a distance of 136 miles and a geographic area of 3,344 square miles. Sedgefield as a constituency has only 140 of those square miles and a population of 85,000. Its population density of 600 per square mile reflects the County Durham figures. However, we are also linked to towns such as Newcastle, which has a density of 6,100 per square mile. That is 10 times as much, and poses a very different risk. Our concern is the agglomeration of this mass. Sedgefield sits in the middle of this. It does not have a city centre. It has many rural villages and a small town. The only reasons people are leaving their communities and travelling are for work and retail, and that is the same across all tiers.
Our hospitality is primarily village pubs and a few hotels. A number of those, such as Walworth Castle, Redworth Hall, and The County in Aycliffe Village, are among those that have made representations to me. They deal almost exclusively with food and meals, with limited accommodation demand other than from workers, and need whatever opportunity Christmas spend would bring. The risk of inter-community transmission from tier 2 restrictions here would be extremely low, but we are tier 3.
I welcome the extra support for hospitality, but we should recognise that these businesses are the lifeblood of these communities and desperately need help and to be allowed to open economically—and not just them, but their extended supply chains. I would like to see rural areas considered differently from cities when it comes to hospitality rules. I would like to see non-food venues evaluated by their risk profile, perhaps by local councils, so a wet pub or private club—be that a golf club or what was previously known as a working men’s club, such as the Big Club in Newton Aycliffe—that has been able to introduce covid compliance could open. Instead, we are grouped into a mass that includes city centres with significantly higher risk profiles, and an exit is difficult to see.
Hope and optimism are the key to getting us through these winter months. The Government should enable those that can provide controlled environments to do so. We need to communicate personal responsibility, in that the rules cover a broad church and we all have to look after our friends and relatives, particularly those that are vulnerable, and we should not max out on our options.
Regionally, numbers are trending well. I support the concept of tiers, but I find it very difficult to accept the size of the regions and the current application across diverse and separate geographies. Please can we see some light on our journey? Can we have some hope for our collapsing hospitality trade? Please reconsider the gravity and pressure of tier 3 on these low-risk enterprises and provide signals as early as possible of any opportunity to trade. It is no good telling them on 16 December, “You can open for Christmas.” No stock, no staff, no bookings—
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Putting further restrictions in place is not what anyone wants. I think we all understand why some level of restrictions is needed, but I cannot support these restrictions and I do not support the way this tiered system breaks the backs of the very poorest in communities, such as my own in the Jarrow constituency.
When we were last in the three-tier system, my constituency started in tier 2. It then went into the national lockdown and we are now going into tier 3. It simply did not work, which is why I call on the Government to ensure that mistakes are not repeated and that no area is left behind. It is irresponsible of the Government to insist that those in tier 3 put up with further hardship, while at the same time encouraging a national knees-up during the Christmas period. This irresponsibility is likely to lead to another devastating national lockdown in January.
There is no point in having devastating restrictions on the hospitality sector if people across all sectors are going into work with covid symptoms simply because they cannot afford to live on £95 a week, or do not qualify for the test and trace support payment due to the strict criteria in place. If people are not self-isolating, it is not because they are selfish or bored, but simply because the Government are not supporting them to do so.
Many in communities such as mine live financially week to week, month to month. If they are forced to self-isolate for two weeks, it means a further slide into debt and rent arrears. Making it financially possible for everyone with covid symptoms to self-isolate must be a priority now for the Government.
It is also grossly unfair that local businesses in my region are set to lose out compared with areas of the country that have spent less time in restrictions. The one-off nature of the £20 a head business support grant means that local authorities must stretch out funding for as long as they are in tier 3. And the tier 3 restrictions are devastating for community pubs such as the Red Hackle in Jarrow, which has been doing great work in supporting kids in our community when the Government refused to fund free school meals over the half-term period. I pay tribute to Lee and the team there.
Unfortunately, the £1,000 grant announced today for wet pubs will barely touch the surface. It demonstrates just how out of touch this Government are with the struggle that the hospitality industry is now facing. I support restrictions in principle, but we need a greater financial support package that includes adequate grants for businesses, full pay for those who need to self-isolate, an uplift in social security, and financial support for the excluded. It is time for the Government to change their strategy. Along with an effective vaccine, only by having—
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I start from the fundamental principle that we do need restrictions across the country in some shape or form. I remember earlier in the year being howled at by various lunatic journalists who told me angrily that the idea that we would ever get to 200 deaths a day this autumn was preposterous and based on false science. Well, we have seen 400, 500 and, on occasion, 600 deaths a day, so we have to take these matters seriously.
As Advent always leads to Christmas, and as Christmas always leads to Epiphany, so lower restrictions always lead to higher transmission rates, and higher transmission rates always lead to problems for the local NHS. That is true in every country in the world; there is no way of avoiding it. Government Members would be daft to listen to the blandishments that they have heard from the Prime Minister over the last couple of days. I would bet that not a single area goes from tier 2 to tier 1 before Christmas, simply because tier 2 does not work—it does not bring the numbers down. There might be some areas that go from tier 3 to tier 2, but there will not be any that go from tier 2 to tier 1, and the Government know it.
There will not be any more nuanced rules and granularity when it comes to the second week of December or the end of February. One thing that has been really difficult for businesses in the hospitality industry is that they are endlessly being told to switch on and switch off. Someone who runs a pub buys in the beer and then has to pour it all down the drain. Incidentally, they are not allowed to pour it down the drain any more. They have to make special provision for it, and that does not mean bringing all their friends round and drinking it. There is a real problem in the brewing industry, and every time we switch on and switch off, it makes this all the more difficult.
I say to the Prime Minister: stop with the metaphors—I am sick and tired of them—and no more over-promising, because when he under-delivers on those promises, it means that the nation stops believing in him. Let us also not be parochial. I am sorry to say to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) that he was being precisely nimbyish. He was saying that he does not want Leicester in his backyard—that is nimbyism. The truth is that we are all in this together, and we have to take this forward as a national enterprise, not a parochial one.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
We have heard some passionate speeches this afternoon opposing the Government’s measures, but I have to say that on this occasion I feel they are wrong. We have had much quoting of local infection rates, which of course is an important measure, but equally important is hospital capacity, and hospitals are not necessarily in the same constituency or council area as the relevant infection rates. Earlier I listened to the passionate and powerful speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who referred to his Market Rasen ward. Market Rasen is about 15 miles outside the boundary of my constituency, and people in Market Rasen go to Grimsby, Scunthorpe and Lincoln hospitals if they need treatment. None of those hospitals is in the same council area as Market Rasen.
We need to take note of what Peter Reading, the chief executive of Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust, said in a statement this morning:
“In common with all trust chief executives, I am concerned that some media reports in recent days have suggested the hospitals are under less pressure than last winter. We believe these reports misunderstand and grossly under-estimate what is actually happening and the huge impact that covid has had on operations and capacity in our hospitals”.
It is irresponsible not to take note of such comments.
Locally, my infection rate in the constituency has roughly halved over the past two or three weeks, so it is difficult to argue that the lockdown has not had some impact. We had a low infection rate in the spring, and people wanted to put up the shutters and prevent people from coming to our area. They also wanted strict enforcement. Now, they want equally strict enforcement because we have a significantly higher rate. Those who argue that the Government are taking too much notice of a small group of experts in SAGE and so on also have to explain why most major European countries are deploying similar policies. Are all their experts equally wrong?
We do need more support, particularly for coastal areas. Where the Government decree that businesses should cease going about their legal business, they need more support from the Government. I and my immediate neighbours will certainly be pressing the Minister for additional support. Like other hon. Members, I have doubts about the five days of relaxation for Christmas. We should be mindful of what could happen in the new year.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call Rachael Maskell, if anybody is on the call list who does not intend to take part in the debate and who has not withdrawn already, please get the message through to the Speaker’s Office so we can better manage the rest of the debate.