Local Government (Disqualification) Bill

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 14th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)]

I rise to speak to the amendments all together. Before I came to this place, I was a councillor for many years, and I absolutely uphold the principles of the Bill and of the Nolan principles of conduct in public life. I also believe in redemption. I have dealt a lot with issues relating to county lines and there is nothing more powerful than seeing somebody who has been involved as a victim but who is none the less convicted because at a very young age they were involved in something over which they had very little choice. The thought that in later life that person might be disqualified from serving in public office is wrong, and it is my understanding that that would happen if we included these amendments. We need to reflect on the fact that people in public office need to have experience and sometimes that experience may be in areas where they need to advise people of their past mistakes. Safeguarding is a different issue and I absolutely support the Bill in that regard. As a result of that, I will not support the amendments if they come to a vote.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), as he said, for some considerable time; we were both on a south London council. Although we are on the same side of the House, sometimes we agree and sometimes we do not. This afternoon, although I have sympathy with what he is plugging for, I do not think this is an appropriate Bill for what he is proposing. It is a Bill that is answering one small point, on which there has tremendous pressure, because there has been evidence of it and of the loophole being abused. As has been said, the loophole is child protection and the relationship with elected councillors. There has been wide consultation with local government before this Bill on the specific issue. The measures it contains are very deliberate and not retrospective. They are also de facto time-limited by the nature of the current legislation relating to the sex offenders list.

It would be fair to say that the new clauses came as a bit of a surprise, although I should have anticipated them because I have known my hon. Friend for some considerable time. I did ask him whether he would like to serve on the Committee, because I knew he would have issues to raise, but he declined to do so. These new clauses will have a draconian effect on local government. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that they will be retrospective all the way back to 1971 for drugs offences, to 1978 for drink-driving offences and to 2018 for social disorder offences. There is no time limit for this disqualification and no consideration given to the nature of the offence or the length of the conviction. This is a retrospective, one-strike-and-you-are-out proposal.

If the proposals were put to local government as they are on the Order Paper, I suspect the response would include the far from unreasonable request that such disqualification laws should be applied to Members of Parliament as well. I am sure my hon. Friend has no distant conviction, so there will be no difficulty for him, but if he has, I suspect he may not be alone. More to the point, I would strongly argue that any such purely hypothetical conviction from decades ago would have no bearing on his ability or that of any other hon. Member to discharge their duties in this place.

The same applies to most, if not almost all, of our hard-working colleagues in local government. When I looked at the amendments and new clauses, I had visions of some poor councillor who had the misfortune to be convicted in the late 1970s for a minor drink-driving offence when a student—I remember my life as a student; I got away with it—driving their battered Mini around the university campus. This person may have gone on to serve as a councillor or even as a mayor for decades, rendering great service to their community, but they would be disqualified at a stroke by the conviction many years ago, thereby forcing a by-election. It is worth mentioning a point that will have crossed the minds of some hon. Members. The inevitable and aggressive partisan trawling for past convictions to be used as a tool to unseat councillors will be particularly horrendous should these new clauses be accepted. Certainly, we will see minor, irrelevant incidents from the councillor’s past dredged up and used as weapons to force the resignation of people who have given huge amounts to their local community. That cannot be right on the basis of the brief discussion that we have had on these amendments today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I have listened to my hon. Friend, so I would rather not.

The measure, in my view, only undermines the primary aim of this Bill, which is to protect children. I was on the Committee for a Labour Government Bill in 2003 that brought this through, and we went backwards and forwards on this issue. Ultimately, I supported it then, and I do so now. This is a uniquely important issue, and I do not believe that it should be conflated with broader arguments over what should or should not disqualify an individual from participating in local government, as, regrettably, these new clauses do.

[The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for taking the time to engage with the legislation. I know that he is keen to ensure that Ministers have thought things through, and I am impressed that he has actually gone through the consultation document from 2018. I disagree with his amendments and I hope that I can convince him from the Dispatch Box that we are doing the right thing. I also wish to put it on record that I disagree with the rather unpleasant accusation that the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) made from the Labour Front Bench.

New clauses 1 and 2 would have the effect of creating a new form of permanent disqualification criteria for individuals convicted of a narrow group of offences under section 5 or section 5A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 or offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There are a number of reasons why the Government are resisting these new clauses. The first is the fact that they propose that the disqualification would be permanent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has said, this runs counter to the principle and expectation that underpins our justice system that offenders serve their time and are then rehabilitated into society. It would have the effect of creating a permanent bar to individuals contributing to public life in their local communities for this limited category of offences. So, singling out this narrow group of drink and drug offences for permanent disqualification is disproportionate.

Secondly, the Bill legislates to capture not only local councillors but mayors and London Assembly members. However, my hon. Friend’s new clauses apply only to local councillors. Thirdly, serious drink or drug-driving offences are already covered by the existing local government disqualification criteria, which bars anyone from standing or holding public office in local government for five years if they have had a custodial sentence of three months or more.

Amendments that create new, punitive measures to permanently disqualify those receiving a conviction for certain limited drink or drug-driving offences or controlled drug offences are really not the purpose of the Bill. The Bill specifically seeks to update disqualification criteria in line with modern sentencing measures available for registered sex offenders. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) said, these amendments would permanently bar, for example, an individual from standing for local office if, perhaps, at 18 they had had a glass of wine too many and were convicted of being slightly over the limit. Forty years later, they would still be unable to stand, which is a bit draconian.

The Bill is appropriately comprehensive, as it catches all those individuals subject to notification requirements for sexual offences but not subject to custodial sentences. The core purpose of this legislation is to prevent those convicted of sexual offences from having a role as a local elected official that could include access to children and vulnerable adults, and the length of their disqualification would be the length of time that they are subject to the notification requirement.

We also resist new clause 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has identified that we did consult on disqualifying individuals who had been issued with antisocial behaviour injunctions in 2017, and the original consultation was focused in scope. This Bill does not include civil injunctions, on the basis that they represent only a partial selection of the injunctions and behaviour orders available to the courts. The Government support this Bill because, as I said earlier, we are legislating comprehensively to disqualify individuals convicted of sexual offences from local office. This Bill responds to calls for changes to the law to disqualify sex offenders who are not given a custodial sentence but refuse to stand down, so we want to bring the disqualification criteria for councillors in line with the modern sentencing practice. The current criteria require updating to reflect changes to the law: the courts have tools that they did not have previously, and the disqualification criteria must reflect that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. New clause 3 may have been supported by the Chancellor in his foreword when he was serving in this role, but he is not the Bill Minister—I am—and I believe that Bills such as this should be specific, targeted and focused. This private Member’s Bill focuses on addressing those concerns raised by specific cases where councillors made subject to the notification requirements for registered sex offenders did not resign. Those cases highlighted the fact that those registered sex offenders pose great concern to our communities.

I will now move on to amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4, which all amend clause 1, and which we resist for the following reasons. Amendments 1 and 4 would selectively remove parish councils from the list of local authorities subject to the new disqualification criteria. This would be a significant and troubling reduction of the purpose, intent, and comprehensiveness of the Bill. Parish councils are already subject to the existing disqualification criteria, and rightly so, as there are 10,000 parish councils and approximately 100,000 parish councillors in England. It is vital that the large number of individuals who hold this important position—the grassroots of our democracy—are also subject to the new disqualification criteria introduced by the Bill. People must be given confidence that the individuals they elect to represent them at all tiers of local government are of good character and beyond reproach.

Amendments 2 and 3 would exclude sexual risk orders from the updated disqualification criteria for members of local authorities in England. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has helpfully pointed out, the Government did consult on the inclusion of sexual risk orders in 2017, and we committed to legislate to disqualify persons subject to such orders from holding local office. Individuals are subject to sexual risk orders because they are found by a court to pose a serious risk of harm to the public in the UK and/or children and vulnerable adults abroad. When issuing a sexual risk order, the court needs to be satisfied that the order is necessary to protect the public, or children and vulnerable adults, from sexual harm, and the Government believe it is right that anyone subject to a sexual risk order should be barred from standing for election or holding office as a member of a local authority.

My hon. Friend asked why we changed our mind—why this Bill covers more than the sex offenders register. I should clarify that the 2017 consultation responses regarding the matter of sexual risk orders were mixed: some 39% of respondents were in favour of prohibition, and 45% were against. However, my hon. Friend is not correct to say that the Government have changed their mind regarding the inclusion of sexual risk orders in this Bill. In our response to the consultation, we stated that having considered the responses we received, the Government believe that where an individual is subject to a sexual risk order, they should be prohibited from standing for election. This Bill delivers on that commitment.

My hon. Friend also asked about enforcement—how local authorities will know that a councillor is on the register or has received an order for a sexual offence. A candidate must declare anything that might disqualify them from standing for, or holding, local office. Not doing so is a criminal offence, and this Bill will update those disqualification criteria and therefore ensure they are captured by this requirement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I beg to move, That the Bill be read the Third time.

I will be very succinct, because having looked at the rest of the day’s agenda, I am aware that there is a taxi behind me tooting its horn.

This Bill is a tiny, specific response to heavy demand from a number of Members and a number of councillors. It is intended to deal with circumstances in which an individual has been able to stand or remain as a councillor despite being on the sex offenders list, because they have not been put in jail. Today we will pass the Bill on to another place, where, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) will be intrigued to know, the third former leader of Wandsworth Council to serve in this building will pick it up and take it forward.

I think the Bill is important. It is short, but it meets a need in ensuring that what applies to councillors who are on the sex offenders list and go to jail also applies to those who, as a result of some quirk, do not go to jail but remain outside, and are therefore able to remain as elected members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I will be very succinct. I have mentioned the taxi cab, and I can hear it behind me—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman might like to ask the leave of the House.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. After all this time, I should have remembered that. I ask the leave of the House to say a few words.

I thank the Minister for her support, and I am grateful for the support from right across the House. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is behind the Bill, although he was going to add all sorts of thorns to it—much, I think, to the dismay of local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and the Minister mentioned MPs. If my hon. Friend had spent some time on the Standards Committee, he would have heard of the ghastly accusation of bringing the House into disrepute. That would apply to any MP in this situation, and the door would be shown to them.

I thank everybody again, and I hope that the Bill will progress swiftly through the other place, led by another ex-leader of Wandsworth Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Local Government (Disqualification) Bill

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 2 to 6 stand part.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

We are particularly delighted to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq.

[The Chair]

I am sorry. You can’t get the staff these days, Sir Paul.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

We were tempted to chair the Committee ourselves, but we were ruled out of order.

[The Chair]

I need some dental work done, as well.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

Absolutely. We were tempted to move the Bill formally, just to save you the trip, but there was an objection.

[The Chair]

Okay—let the process continue.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I am delighted that we are putting the clauses together so that we can discuss them quickly. I think there is universal support for the contributions that follow to be short. I am aware that a number of supporters, on both the Government and the Opposition side, are keen to leave as soon as feasible, so I will be quick.

Like many people, I was very surprised to hear that there is a loophole in the legislation on disqualification of local government elected members who are convicted of a sexual offence. That conviction means that they are subject to the relevant notifications commonly known as the sex offenders list. If the individuals are subject to a custodial sentence, they are automatically disqualified from their elected post. If they are not subject to a custodial sentence, even though they are put on the sex offenders list, they are not automatically disqualified. That really took me by surprise, as it did other people.

The reality, therefore, is that such individuals can stand in an election to become a local government member, and in a few cases over the past few years that has happened. I believe that is absolutely unacceptable. It is degrading. It means that people who should be looking out for the vulnerable, especially children, are in a position where one might doubt that they are actually doing so.

This tiny but somewhat complex Bill will remove that loophole. To hasten proceedings, I have sent all Committee members a copy of the Bill and the explanatory notes, so that they already have the matter covered.

The grounds for disqualification are set out in clause 1, which is entitled

“Members of local authorities in England etc”,

to whom this change will apply. Similarly, the Acts to which the changes will apply are set out. Clause 2 applies to Mayors of combined authorities. Clause 3 applies to the Mayor of London and London Assembly members. The supplementary and final provisions are set out in clauses 4 to 6. Clause 4 contains references to Channel Islands or Isle of Man legislation. Clause 5 deals with transitional provision. Clause 6 addresses the extent, commencement and short title.

Having quickly summarised the Bill, I must thank and congratulate the Minister and her officials, who put together this small but extraordinarily complex Bill, covering all the bases of local government legislation in England and Wales.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I shall be briefer than I think I have ever been in Parliament and simply say that I and the Labour party fully endorse the Bill, and we congratulate the hon. Member for Mole Valley on his efforts in bringing it forward. In my view, it is important that this change is made in relation to all representatives, but with a special focus on those who act as corporate parents. The Labour party supports the Bill.

[The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

I have a very long speech that I am keen for all members of the Committee to go through with me over the next 25 minutes.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for picking up this private Member’s Bill and helping us to close this loophole. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with him in progressing the Bill to Committee stage, and I look forward to supporting it over the upcoming legislative hurdles, of which no doubt there will be very few for what is a common-sense and necessary measure for the statute book.

It is clear that people must be given confidence that the individuals they elect to represent them are of good character, worthy of trust and beyond reproach. Mayors and local councillors are responsible for the delivery of vital services, including for children and vulnerable adults, and good character in the people making decisions about such services should be the minimum expectation.

It goes without saying that the vast majority of councillors and Mayors are driven by a deep sense of public duty, and they deserve our respect for the excellent job they do. However, perhaps inevitably when there are 120,000 councillors serving all tiers of local government in England, there are rare occasions when the behaviour of individuals falls below the standards that the public rightly expect.

Two such cases have shone a sharp light on the need for reform, including a particularly notorious incidence that involved a parish councillor downloading indecent images of children soon after their election to public office. Despite being placed on the sex offenders register, this individual refused to do the decent thing by stepping down and he then went on to serve his full term. This intolerable situation was made possible by our current legislation on disqualification not having kept pace with our sentencing regime, as our rules disqualified someone only if they received a custodial sentence of three months or more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley has already described the clauses that are to stand part of the Bill, so I will not repeat them, but it is important to mention the devolved Administrations, as they are not represented in the room. There is a commitment to support Northern Ireland implementation, and clause 6 sets out that the Act will come into force two months after the day on which it is passed. The clause also confirms that the provisions apply to England only.

Local government functions are devolved, which means the Bill is specifically for England. That being said, the Welsh Government have recently legislated on the matter and the Scottish Parliament may wish to make corresponding provision, because the UK Government, unlike in the devolved nations, retains general responsibility for local government elections. The Government will work with the Northern Ireland Executive to seek to extend these measures to Northern Ireland in a comprehensive package, addressing candidates and sitting councillors.

This Government believe that it is absolutely right for councillors, Mayors and members of the Greater London Assembly to face consequences if they fall short of the behaviour we all expect in an inclusive and tolerant society. This private Member’s Bill will help us uphold standards in public life and deliver on our commitment to legislate on this issue. Updates to the disqualification criteria are timely and, many would say, long overdue, and I am pleased to commend the Bill to the Committee.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I am delighted but not surprised that there is general support. I am conscious that Members want to get out of here, so I will be very quick. Before you put the question, Dr Huq, I wish to thank you and all who have attended, having been dragged out of the coffee room. I ask the Minister to convey my thanks to her officials who put the Bill together, because it is much more complicated than it looks—I remember struggling with local government legislation when I was a local government Minister. I thank those who have spoken for being succinct, and I also thank those who did not speak.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Commonwealth Day 2021

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) [V]]

I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Paisley, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger) on obtaining this important debate. He is obviously key, given his position. Now that I have started to speak, it is clear that I have an interest: I have dual nationality. I carry a New Zealand passport from one end of the world, and a UK passport from this end.

As everybody has pointed out, and will continue to do so, the Commonwealth is a unique worldwide family. It is international, colourful in every way, and a fantastic mixture of races, religions, languages and creeds. It is based around the United Kingdom and the Queen. In saying that, I cautiously recognise that New Zealand’s near neighbour—that little island called Australia just off the shore of New Zealand—occasionally has a few republican problems. Ask any New Zealander and they will explain that merely being an Australian is a problem in itself.

I should explain that point a little. These two old Commonwealth nations in the south Pacific have had a huge rivalry for probably a century or longer. The insults and jokes between them are phenomenal, but every joke can be turned round and played back the other way. The two have huge battles, particularly in sport and most especially in rugby, yet in normal work and normal life, and especially in times of war, these two old Commonwealth nations work extremely closely, and particularly as part of the British Commonwealth. Along with Canada and South Africa, Australia and New Zealand make up what I call the old Commonwealth. They have a Commonwealth link, reinforced by huge kith and kin links, and a two-way flow of tourism and migration dating back almost two centuries.

The biggest examples of kith and kin links involves times of conflict. In the first world war, there was Gallipoli, which led to Anzac Day, the antipodean equivalent of Remembrance Day. Anzac Day there is very important. The people in these countries remember the soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought for the United Kingdom as part of the Commonwealth. I found it hard to understand as a child. I remember living in my little village, and I do mean a little village in the north of the south island of New Zealand, and we had a war memorial. The war memorial walls were covered with the names of soldiers who had died—hundreds and hundreds of soldiers, just from that little village.

I have visited Monte Cassino, the scene of the battle for Rome in world war two, which took place between 17 January and 18 May 1944. In fact, four battles were fought there. The soldiers involved on our side were called allied troops. With the exception of the Polish forces, who finally went over the top, they all came from Commonwealth countries. A total of 54,000 men from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Canada died at Monte Cassino, plus quite a number of Gurkhas. The reality of what happened there came home to me during a visit, and I recommend anybody who is in the area to go and visit, too.

These Commonwealth countries were not particularly happy when the United Kingdom went into the Common Market. However, rather than sitting and moping, they set about making trade deals with many nations, rather than just suffering from the loss of trade with the United Kingdom. Brexit and our eagerness for free trade deals will now enable us to use our Commonwealth ties to obtain trade deals more easily with Commonwealth nations.

Australia and New Zealand are formidable agricultural producers. Fortunately, rather than seeking to dominate the UK market in agriculture, they wish to work with our farmers to fulfil the trade deals that they themselves have with other nations, such as China and those in the EU.

The opportunities that these Commonwealth countries offer for our manufactured goods are also formidable. Neither Australia nor New Zealand have their own home vehicle production, and I believe that the same is true of Canada. They could and should be formidable markets for British-made cars, particularly Jaguar Land Rover cars.

I disagree with the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) about immigration. When I first came to this country, immigration was easy, or at least easier, if someone came from a Commonwealth country and had professional training. Now that we are looking after our own immigration, we will be able to return to using the expertise that we can gain from abroad, particularly from the old Commonwealth nations, and the national health service in this country will benefit dramatically.

The possibilities that a partnership between Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK will bring for this country, and the access that it should help to provide to the trans-Pacific partnership, are also of great interest. Being a Commonwealth of nations must grease the wheels just as we desperately need trade—indeed, it is starting to work.

Commonwealth in 2020

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) on her maiden speech. She has broken the ice and is on the way. It was a powerful speech with some key markers, so it is going to be interesting to watch her, although I do not quite agree with everything.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) on his maiden speech. Some time back, he said to me, “I’m an Army officer and I want to be a MP.” I said, “Why?” We then discussed why not, and after that, we discussed why he should. I left him walking away with a puzzled look on his face, but he obviously decided that the positive things were the way forward, and he is here.

The first thing I have to do is admit to being a dual national. I carry a New Zealand passport in one hand and a UK passport in the other, and that gives me a special interest in this debate. The Commonwealth works together very hard, and it competes—no more so than in sport and no more so than between Australia and New Zealand, particularly on the rugby field. If people do not come from one of those two nations, the banter between them sounds vicious, but, in fact, it is not. I was a little disappointed when the Minister said that his brother had gone to Australia, and I surmised that it was because New Zealanders would not let him in. I also did not remind him, but I will now, that the venom between the two countries—it is unreal, but joking—can reach quite a pitch, as it did some years ago, when the then New Zealand Prime Minister said that anybody from New Zealand emigrating to Australia lifted the IQ of both countries, but we will not go into that any further.

The amazing thing is that—despite the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) —the Commonwealth works. It is predominantly countries collected in the British empire’s growth and, as has been referred to, it was not always that gentle. Post Brexit, we are looking for a huge expansion in our trade deals, hence Britain is in a unique position as head of the Commonwealth. As the Minister will be aware, Commonwealth states have, for some time, been working on economic connectivity. The goal is to expand investment and boost intra-Commonwealth trade to £1.5 trillion by 2030. Member states are offering capacity building to support trade liberalisation, helping one another to realise the full economic potential and deliver prosperity for all their people. It is what we would expect from a British background.

Considering that we now have the opportunity and desirability to expand our trade, this moment could not be more opportune. Commonwealth states together comprise 14% of global GDP, or over £8 trillion. The Commonwealth’s people, as has been mentioned, make up 33% of the world’s population, of which over 60% are under the age of 30. Factors including historical ties, similar administrative and legal systems and a common language all contribute to what we can call the “Commonwealth effect.” This helps to facilitate trade, accompanied with an ease of doing business between members. Furthermore, as it is desirable for us to reach a trade agreement with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, it is extremely helpful to have Commonwealth friends within the TPP.

The Commonwealth brings together a family of 54 diverse member states, all committed to the development of free and democratic societies. We all seek the promotion of peace and prosperity to improve the lives of all our people. We have a Commonwealth charter, which reminds us of our shared language, culture and history and our shared values and principles.

It is worth reminding the House, although it is not necessary, of the huge support Britain and Europe received during the second world war from Commonwealth nations, including south-east Asian nations, Canada, Australasia, the Pacific Islands and the southern African nations. For some of those nations, the losses, as a percentage of the adult male population, were staggering, particularly in my original country, New Zealand. On Remembrance Sunday in my constituency, I frequently attend a service at one of my villages during which the names of those who died from that village are read out. I have also been to a service on Anzac Day—remembrance day—in my wee village in New Zealand where they do not read out the names because it would take too long.

If one is visiting Canberra and Australia, I would highly recommend a visit to the Australian war memorial. The number of names inscribed on the memorial walls of those who lost their lives fighting, predominantly over here, in the second world war, is breathtaking and deeply sad. The explanation for that support, particularly from the Commonwealth nations, lies in the extremely strong kith and kin relationships. As I have said, my direct knowledge is predominantly about New Zealand, although I have lived for longer in the UK—I return to New Zealand occasionally to tone up my language and refresh my accent. New Zealand is a little country, being but 104 square miles greater in landmass than the United Kingdom, with a population of only 4 million, far away the majority of whom live in the north of the two islands. It is in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by amazing oceans, with phenomenal countryside, as anyone will know who has seen the “Lord of the Rings” films. In terms of saving the environment, New Zealanders are extremely green.

It is fair to say, however, that the Commonwealth group of nations also rank saving the earth high on their agenda. In 2018, a key outcome of the Commonwealth blue charter was an unprecedented multilateral commitment by the Commonwealth states to work together on ocean conservation and to meet the commitments for sustainable ocean development, which is particularly important at a time when the threats confronting our oceans are numerous and deadly. Some 47 of the 54 Commonwealth members are coastal states, and they include most of the world’s small island developing states, which are the most vulnerable to ocean degradation and climate change and face the appalling prospect of disappearing under rising sea levels. Together, they cover more than one third of national marine waters globally and are home to 42% of coral reefs. The Commonwealth group of nations do then have a huge stake in the future of our oceans. I rank islands such as the Fiji islands among the most beautiful for idyllic beach holidays. Here, you will be hosted by some of the most lovely and friendly people you could ever hope to meet. Fortunately, Commonwealth member states continue to work together to combat these threats to our marine environment. I hope to see the great promise of this work fulfilled in years to come, and I urge the Minister to continue with it.

It is great to be British—even if my accent is odd—but it is even greater to be British and a member of the Commonwealth.

Iran

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

Iran’s destabilising activity is fairly broad geographically. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have a distant, declared interest in Libya, where there is a battle going on between General Haftar and the Government of National Accord. There are some dubious forces behind General Haftar, including, I understand recently, 100 mercenaries from Russia. Is there any indication that Iran’s fiddling in the affairs of other countries has got as far as Libya?

[Dominic Raab]

There is widespread concern that Iran will take every opportunity, through its proxies and through local militias and other groups, to exert its influence and have a destabilising effect in order to pursue its own narrow national interest in a way that is deeply damaging for the international order and for regional stability. In relation to Libya, I would want to look very carefully at that, but I think there is a much broader, general threat that Iran is systematically posing.

Commonwealth Day

Paul Beresford Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley, and more so because of your deep knowledge and experience of Commonwealth matters, on which we have occasionally been conjoined. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate because I have been trying to press the idea that, on or around Commonwealth day, all members of the Commonwealth should be encouraged to hold a debate on either general or particular matters affecting it. Such debates are an occasion to celebrate the anniversary of the Commonwealth on the designated Commonwealth day and to raise the Commonwealth’s profile by highlighting why it is a body to be nurtured and encouraged as a forum for frank discussion.

It is too easy for the Commonwealth to be taken for granted. We recently celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, but I suspect that if we went out on to the streets of London, and possibly the streets of many other parts of the country, and asked the first 10 people we met what they understood of the Commonwealth, the answers would be rather meagre.

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I suspect it depends on the street. The response on Earls Court road might be different.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I take my hon. Friend’s point. The British would probably have to fight for recognition in that part of London.

I ask myself how we should respond to the public’s general lack of recognition of what the Commonwealth is and does. I tend to think of the Commonwealth as a work in progress: developing networks, exchanging information, exploring potential, making friends and doing business. The word “family” is often used in connection with the Commonwealth, and I do not think that is entirely inappropriate because the occasional quarrel is not unknown in families. The fact that we do not all think alike on every subject all the time is not a reason for abandoning or decrying the project. I make a risky comparison with the European Union, which is also a work in progress. For all those who may despair of where the EU is going, how fast it is going and what it is doing, we can look back now and realise how much the situation in Europe has changed. We are commemorating a great war of terrible privations, and we have moved on a long way from that after 2,000 years of strife. One does not expect countries from five or six continents, however they are described, suddenly to find accord on every single subject and to find themselves walking in step on economic matters at all times.

My point is that continuing to strive to achieve common objectives within the Commonwealth is emphatically worth while, even if sometimes progress seems imperceptible. The Commonwealth is a voluntary body. Countries do not have to be a member, yet it is significant and encouraging that more countries are prepared to join, including countries that were not part of the former British empire. That is a good indicator that the Commonwealth has moved on and still has meaning for many other countries. The Commonwealth would be a strange body, however, if it did not contain members or possess friends willing it to improve its functioning, raise its standards and develop its potential. The weighty report two years ago from the eminent persons group was brimming with ideas, but not all of those ideas received universal acclaim from those for whom the report was intended. There is no lack of advice on what one might try to do to give the Commonwealth greater focus and meaning.

The Commonwealth’s anchor in the political sphere is probably our charter of fundamental values, which was endorsed and launched by Her Majesty the Queen a year ago. It would be idle to pretend that all those fundamental values are burning bright in every member country, yet any perceived deficiency is not necessarily of one kind or in one place. None of us is perfect in the eyes of some of our friends and colleagues. Without a degree of caution and moderation of language, we can all find ourselves submerging in a sea of recrimination, but we also cannot simply push to one side the challenging issues that undoubtedly exist within our ranks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear that it was a mundane reason, rather than one of high policy. It covers my blushes in being unable to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).

I draw attention to the stand-out event in 2014 of the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. They are often described as “the friendly games”. While sport may be about rivalries, these gatherings can help to spread friendship and understanding in their own way.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

On a similar theme of friendliness, does my right hon. Friend recognise from his visits to Commonwealth countries and from talking to people from the Commonwealth that there is a feeling over the past few years, and under the previous Labour Government in particular, that there has been a tightening in the visas and opportunities for people from Commonwealth countries, including young people, to come to this country to work and to contribute? That is particularly felt as they arrive at Gatwick or such places and see that they are aliens.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

Sometimes when I arrive at terminal 5, I feel like an alien, but that is to do with whether we have sufficient capacity arrangements at our airports. I had a discussion recently with the high commissioner for India, where there are particular feelings that our attempts to clamp down on bogus students are starting to deter legitimate students from coming here. There has also been some retrenchment on Commonwealth scholarships. I have also discussed that subject with the high commissioner for Canada, because Canada has taken a more restrictive attitude. It is terribly important that we find ways of encouraging people from Commonwealth countries to visit here. Young people are, on the whole, more mobile than they have perhaps ever been, and that is an encouraging factor. My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Having said that an awful lot of good things are going on—some below the radar. We still cannot ignore the family difficulties and they cannot just be somehow wished away. I suspect that if we locked the Heads of Government in a room for a month and left them to talk in private, they would not be able to overcome some of the difficulties that are very much known to us all. That brings me to the role of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, on which I intend to focus this afternoon. If the Commonwealth charter, in Her Majesty’s words,

“sets out the values and principles which guide and motivate us”,

the establishment of good governance throughout Commonwealth countries surely provides the essential foundation for the practical implementation of those values and principles. The major aim of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is parliamentary strengthening. That is done in a number of ways, such as election observance missions and post-election seminars.

We have to take note of the churn rate of elected politicians—it should send a chill down all our spines—which is pretty big. Electorates of various places, small and large, have been known to sweep out large numbers of the incumbents. Consequently, there is a flow of new people to Parliaments and they can benefit from the type of courses put on by the CPA. Specialist courses have been developed in the field of public accounts and on the encouragement of women parliamentarians. Name the parliamentary activity and it is possible to provide an instructional seminar that can help with it and with which Members and Clerks are ready to engage. There is a constant cross-fertilisation of ideas and expertise. We can assemble in this Chamber because of an idea first developed in the Australian Parliament to enable us to provide parallel opportunities for debates to take place and to improve the possibilities of Back-Bench participation in particular, as well as increasing scrutiny of Select Committee reports and the like.

The kind of activities that I mentioned require not only financial resources, but time. Elected Members well know that taking so much as one step out of their own jurisdiction is likely to bring the coals of press criticism descending on their heads. It is important to recognise that MPs across the Commonwealth—and not just young people in a different context—can inform one another. That amounts to what we might describe as soft diplomacy: creating understanding by constant discussion in a friendly and informal way, which enables some of the differences to be worn away over time.

Stronger Parliaments lead to better governance and build confidence in the validity of democratic systems. While the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has the potential to bolster parliamentary democracy and underpin human rights, it lacks the capacity to do so as well as it might. The CPA has not achieved the extent of Commonwealth-wide recognition that it should have. Also, there is a blurred understanding of the exact role of the Commonwealth secretariat. Those positions have not been as well defined as it would be helpful for them to be. The situation is complicated by other organisations in the landscape, such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the Commonwealth Foundation, the Royal Commonwealth Society and the Commonwealth Local Government Forum. Many of us are nibbling at the same apple, and there is insufficient co-ordination to ensure—if we believe that we have a purpose to fulfil—that we do it on a much greater and more effective scale.

For the reasons I have given, I believe that parliamentarians should be to the fore, together with their local government equivalents. The CPA has not taken the helm, or, possibly, has not been helped to take the helm. Sometimes Speakers or Presiding Officers in particular Parliaments do not engage to ensure that the CPA branches in their country and the provinces of their country are actively engaged in a beneficial way. The special value of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is that it is not just about 53 countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your surveillance, Mr Bayley. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) on securing this debate and setting the broad scene. That enables me to be a little more focused on what is called the old Commonwealth, which is the backbone of the Commonwealth with the United Kingdom at the head. There is a feeling among the old Commonwealth nations that the door that was open is slowly closing, and that that was happening particularly under the last Government.

I have been speaking for about 10 seconds, and everyone is aware from my accent that I come from one of the Commonwealth countries. I cannot get away from that, but my accent is not Australian. I have dual nationality and I carry a British passport and a New Zealand one, which creates difficulties sometimes when there is a small battle at Twickenham. I assure all hon. Members that I cheer for England, although I put my money on the All Blacks.

As I said during an intervention, when I arrive at Gatwick, having dual nationality gives me the opportunity to survey which is the longest queue and which has more people serving it. I sometimes join the alien queue because it is quicker.

[Andrew Percy]

Does my hon. Friend share my opinion that it is terrible that Canadian, Australian and New Zealand nationals, who share the same monarch as us, are treated as complete foreigners when people from 26 other foreign countries can just walk through as though they were British citizens? That is completely unacceptable.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my hon. Friend, who fired the shot for me without my accent, which was helpful.

The Commonwealth is a unique organisation. It is a worldwide family with a mixture of races, religions, languages and creeds based around the United Kingdom and the Queen. As I said, I come from New Zealand, which is a huge supporter of the Commonwealth and the Queen. If the New Zealand magazine, Women’s Weekly, does not have six pictures of the Queen and the royal family, there has been a misprint along the line.

New Zealand has slight republican moments, and I understand that it is considering a slight variation of the flag, but we will see. It will be amusing because Women’s Weekly will battle to keep the flag and I suspect that elderly New Zealand ladies will rally to the cause.

Next door to New Zealand is another Commonwealth nation—a little island called Australia. It has a few republican problems and, if asked, any New Zealander would explain that being Australian is in itself a difficulty, but it seems to overcome that, particularly in the cricket field.

Those two old Commonwealth nations have a huge rivalry, which can be seen on the rugby field. The insults and jokes between them are phenomenal and racist, but every joke can be turned round the other way, so anything a New Zealander says about Australia can be returned the other way round. However, they work extremely closely with the British Commonwealth, particularly when the United Kingdom is under deep threat. With Canada and South Africa, they are the old Commonwealth. They have a Commonwealth link, reinforced by kith and kin, and a two-way flow of tourism and migration going back two centuries, although that is being stemmed now.

My direct knowledge is obviously predominately of New Zealand, although I have lived in the UK longer than I lived there. I occasionally return there for a refresher course in the accent and attitudes. A touch of history may be helpful. New Zealand’s biggest influx of immigration over the past couple of centuries involved people who went there by choice—I am sure I will receive letters from Australians about this—and were not transported there. That can be seen when wandering around New Zealand, because the place names are a mixture of Maori, English, Scottish and Irish, and there are even a few Welsh names. The people there drive on the left. They predominantly speak English or a version of it, and the parliamentary system, although it has only one House, is much the same as that here. In fact, it mimics it even to the building. It is not quite as spectacular and not anywhere near as old, but it does mimic it.

My parents’ and grandparents’ generations talked of the United Kingdom as home and of “going back”. They still do. What intrigued me was that many of them had never been here, but they still talked about going back. They all have close links with this country and they display that in their houses. My parents’ and grandparents’ generations in particular would have on the coffee table in the sitting room—it was a sitting room, not a withdrawing room or drawing room—a fantastic book or two. Those fantastic books are full of photographs, which are dramatic for two reasons. First, they feature the United Kingdom and its beautiful scenery. The second and even more amazing thing is that the photographs were taken on sunny days. How the photographers managed to get 50, 60 or a couple of hundred sunny days to take fantastic photos beggars belief, especially after the last few months.

The close rapport between the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia is perhaps emphasised most in the farming communities. There are very close links, including educational links, both ways between the farmers, but perhaps it is more educational for the farmers from this country. One of my colleagues in this place asked me whether I could find a farm—he was thinking of a farm in this country, as I belong to the National Farmers Union—for his daughter to spend her gap year on before going to veterinary school. She needed a very good and unusual entry—a star entry—on farming on her CV to get into vet school. I ignored the thought that the farm would be here and rang New Zealand. I spoke to one of the high-country farmers I know there. They said, “Yes, we’d love to take her here—kith and kin etc.” She was over the moon, until she arrived and suddenly realised what she had taken on. The farm has barley, lucerne hay and so on, 1,000 head of cattle, 1,000 head of deer and 23,000 lambing ewes, so when they have lambed—this is the farm I came from—there are 50,000 woolly beasts running around the place. That my colleague’s daughter went there was an example of kith and kin. She had a hard time for the first couple of weeks and then settled into it and came back really educated. She staggered the people who interviewed her for veterinary school, and walked straight in.

Of course, the biggest example of kith and kin is seen at times of conflict. We have the first world war commemoration coming up. In that war, there was the battle of Gallipoli, which led to Anzac day. Here, Remembrance day is important. It is covered on television. Anzac day in Australia and New Zealand is the same. Interestingly, the young people in Australia and New Zealand now go to the remembrance celebration there. They used not to do that in the past. The people of those countries remember the soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought for the United Kingdom as part of the Commonwealth.

I found this hard to understand as a child. My little village—it was a little village, in the north of the south island—had a war memorial. In typical New Zealand style, people were pragmatic about it. It was a superb memorial, but of course they had public toilets underneath it, because they had to use the space there for something useful. The walls of the memorial—one can see this at any of the memorials in Australia and New Zealand, but particularly at the war memorial in Canberra—were covered with the names of the soldiers who had died, and there were hundreds upon hundreds from that little village.

On Remembrance day in this country, I go to the villages in my area, and they read out the names. That is desperately important—it is desperately important that the names are remembered—but people cannot read out the names in the little village that I come from, because that would take up the whole time for the service.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. May I share this with him? Recently, my daughter did a first world war project, which involved researching the names on the war memorial in our village. We found that a significant number of them were people who had emigrated before the first world war to New Zealand and who came back to fight for their country and die for their country, their country being both New Zealand and the UK.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

This is one of the latest examples of what I am discussing. Some of us will remember that in Afghanistan there was a Mumbai-style attack on the Intercontinental hotel in Kabul. Two vehicles rolled up. Six guys got out, charged in, dealt with the terrorists and came out unscathed. They did look as though they had come out of a Rambo movie, but they were the New Zealand SAS, who had just been called up on spec to go in and deal with the situation. They did that, calmly, and got out. They are dangerous people, those New Zealand SAS.

Some years ago, I visited Monte Cassino, the scene of the battle for Rome in world war two. Between 17 January and 18 May 1944, four battles were fought there. The soldiers involved on our side were called allied troops. There were Polish troops, but the only others were from Commonwealth countries. A total of 54,000 men from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Canada were lost, as well as a number of Gurkhas.

The horrible reality of what happened came home to me during my visit. There were separate cemeteries for the various nations, with thousands and thousands of tombstones, but what really struck me was the ages of the troops buried there. Most of them—these are troops from the Commonwealth countries—were in their late 20s or in their 30s or 40s. Almost all of them would have been married and had families. Those families had no father, because they were over here, fighting for a United Kingdom war. That explains why, when I was a kid, I noticed that in my village there were a lot of single-parent families and a lot of ladies who remained single. That was simply because there were no men.

After the war, shoals of people from New Zealand and Australia came to the United Kingdom on six-week boat trips. Nowadays they fly. Many if not all are skilled. They are doctors, dentists, nurses, farmers, accountants, lawyers and experts in banking, finance or construction. Some stay; others move on to other parts of the world; and some go back. But they all contribute to this country. For decades, university graduates have been among New Zealand’s biggest exports. In the main, they used to come here. However, the United Kingdom has become progressively less receptive in the past few years. Entry is becoming more difficult, and to stay to contribute is becoming more difficult. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look at that.

People from New Zealand, Australia, Canada and South Africa are exactly the type of immigrants this country needs. In general, they have high skills, earn high net incomes and pay a lot of tax. They are almost invisible to social services, because they never use them. They integrate well into British society. After all, most of them have parents, grandparents or even great-grandparents who came, either directly or indirectly, from the UK. They share the culture. They share the language, mostly. They share the heritage. And they tend to play slightly better rugby, but they blend in and add value to the United Kingdom. Their ability to blend in was recognised at one of the recent grand slam games—I am talking about rugby, ladies. The coach of one of the most successful Welsh national rugby teams has a very strong New Zealand accent.

Distressingly, the United Kingdom, as I have said, seems to be closing the door on Commonwealth immigration. It is losing expertise in medicine, dentistry, accounting, physiotherapy, the law and so on. I find that extraordinary. Highly trained professional people who come to the United Kingdom are being required to sit extra exams so that they can work here, whereas they are welcome in some other nations. The quality of their degrees is every bit as good as—and, dare I say it in hushed tones, perhaps sometimes better than—what is achieved here. If degrees from the United Kingdom are acceptable in those countries—and they are—that should be reciprocated, especially as a disproportionate number of the medical, dental and legal teaching staff in universities here are from those old Commonwealth nations. The same applies to the United States and Canada, but without the same difficulties.

Lord Rutherford began the process. It has continued; and I hope that, with a bit of freedom and a bit of relaxation, it will still continue. I receive many complaints from United Kingdom businesses and from Australians and New Zealanders that they are able to work here for only a very few years—generally two. Perhaps the Government could positively review that aspect of immigration policy.

The Commonwealth is very special for its people. In these difficult days, the United Kingdom needs to build on that family of nations and not destroy the willingness and desire to be in harmony with the United Kingdom in the Commonwealth.