Proportional Representation Campaign Response

Thank you to the many constituents getting in touch regarding support for Proportional Representation.

I am afraid that I do not support the use of Proportional Representation and certainly not for UK General Elections.

First Past The Post (FPTP) is a tried and tested system that encourages political stability and clear governance, and that also tends to prevent disproportionate influence by minority parties with minimal public support, who typically end up holding the balance of power in PR systems.

FPTP is well established and understood by voters, providing a clear and robust way of electing Members of Parliament, and the important link between constituents (and constituencies) and their representatives in Westminster under FPTP is almost universally acknowledged as a key, and hugely valuable, benefit of the FPTP system.

Most of the time, FPTP produces governments with working majorities in Parliament, enabling efficient and effective decision-making, and encouraging proper accountability at election time where people can easily decide if they prefer the existing governing party to the main alternative on offer.

In similar vein, FPTP also encourages the existence of a strong opposition party that can hold the government of the day accountable and that can try to prepare itself, and present itself, as a realistic alternative government at the following election.

PR systems are less transparent, more complicated and less likely to lead to an effective and truly accountable government. After a somewhat inconclusive PR election in Belgium in 2010 it took no fewer than 540 days to form a new government. I would also point to Israel which uses PR and has just had its fourth General Election in two years having had them in March 2020, September 2019, and April 2019.

I would also add that during these unprecedented and challenging times and after the Brexit saga of 2019 which eventually resulted in a General Election and my election as an MP the last thing that we would need now and having the past year that we have had is a hung Parliament.

If you would like to discuss this further or any other matter, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk

Please help stop race horses being whipped Campaign Response

Thank you to the many constituents who have recently go in touch with me regarding Early Day Motion 135 calling for an immediate ban on the use of the whip in racing.

As a rule, I do not support Early Day Motions as they often do not get debated and have no legislative effect. I believe change can be driven better through the other democratic processes available to us in Parliament.

I agree that the irresponsible use of the whip is unacceptable. The British Horseracing Association (BHS), the governing and regulatory body for the sport, requires that whips used in horse racing must be used responsibly, for safety reasons or only to encourage the horse.

The current BHS policy on the whip was drawn up in consultation with animal welfare groups, such as World Horse Welfare and the RSPCA. The latest rules include a threshold on the number of times the whip can be used before racing stewards can consider an inquiry. If the rules are broken, the jockey may be banned from racing for a certain period of time depending on how serious the offence is.

The Horse Welfare Board’s five-year Horse Welfare Strategy published in February 2020, contains 20 recommendations for improving horse welfare. It recommends that, as a minimum, the penalties for misuse of the whip need to increase and that the BHA should conduct a consultation on the use of the whip. As well as seeking views on the appropriate sanctions for misuse of the whip, it also recommends that the BHA uses the consultation to consider whether the use of the whip for encouragement should be banned or retained and whether the rules that restrict the use of the whop for encouragement need to be changed.

I know that the consultation process was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic, a new timetable will be agreed at an appropriate time in the future and I look forward to seeing the outcomes of this consultation. In addition to sanctions from the sport, using the whip indiscriminately on horses could lead to a prosecution under the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, which makes it a criminal offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any animal.

You may also be interested in a previous post I have done on Animal Sentience.

https://cherilynmackrorymp.blogspot.com/2021/02/time-is-running-out-to-protect-animal.html

If you would like to discuss this further or any other matter, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk

Where is the Deposit Return Scheme Campaign Response

Thank you to the many constituents who have recently go in touch with me regarding the Deposit Return Scheme.

I have now raised this with Rebecca Pow, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Rural Affairs and Biosecurity, and have received the following response, copied and pasted for ease of reference: -

“Following initial consultation in 2019, we are publishing detailed proposals for two of our major packaging and collection reforms that will boost recycling, make producers more responsible for the packaging they place on the market and use, that will also step-up our war against plastic pollution and litter. The following two consultations are being launched for a period of 10 weeks. We will provide final details for each reform later this year.

• A Deposit Return Scheme for drinks containers: covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This will ensure that billions more drinks bottles and cans are recycled and reused and not condemned to landfill or littered in our communities. With consumers paying a small deposit when purchasing an in-scope drinks container, they will be incentivised to take their empty bottle or can to a return point to get their deposit back. This will ensure that we increase recycling, capture high-quality material for reprocessing, and reduce the number of bottles and cans littered in our streets and countryside.

• Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging: UK wide. This will see producers meeting the full net cost of managing the packaging that they place on the market once it becomes waste. Higher fees will be paid by those producers who use packaging that is more difficult to recycle or reuse, producers will need to meet higher recycling targets, and we are proposing that obligated producers will be incentivised to reduce litter and keep our communities clean. The third of our major reforms, which will see consistent recycling collections for all households and businesses in England, will also be going out to consultation shortly.

These reforms will help the UK build back better and greener from the pandemic and boost our global leadership in tackling climate change and plastic pollution. As hosts of COP26 this year, President of the G7 and a key player in the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we are leading the international climate change agenda and our landmark waste reforms will help bring government, society and the world

https://together-for-our-planet.ukcop26.org/

Through our world-leading Environment Bill we are transforming the way we deal with our waste. Tackling plastic pollution lies at the heart of our efforts, and we have already taken steps to ban microbeads in rinse-off personal care products, cut supermarket sales of single-use plastic bags by 95% and prohibit the supply of plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds.”

I hope that the above information is useful and as ever if you would like to discuss this further or any other matter, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk

Asylum Seeker Support Campaign Response

Thank you to the many constituents who have recently go in touch with me regarding Aylum Seeker support.  

I understand that this is a very important issue and I am pleased that the Uk's long tradition of providing a place of safety for refugees. All claims for asylum are carefully considered and where it is found that individuals are in need of protection, asylum is given, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.  

Asylum seekers are allowed to work, in jobs on the Shortage Occupation List, if their claim has not been decided after 12 months through no fault of their own. The current policy on this strikes a balance between being equitable towards asylum seekers, while considering the rights and needs of our society as a whole, prioritising jobs for British citizens and those with leave to remain here, including refugees. The government is considering recent calls to change the current police and is reviewing the evidence available.  

Any asylum seeker who would otherwise be destitute provided with free accommodation, utility bills and council tax paid and a weekly cash allowance with extra money available for mothers and young children.  

From 15 June, the cash allowance was raised from £37.75 to £39.60, representing a rise of around 5 per cent. It is important to consider that this is significantly higher than general inflation which data showed was 0.8% in the 12 months to April 2020. Indeed, food inflation over the same period was 1.4%.  

I appreciate that there are concerns over this allowance figure. The methodology used for the cash allowance has been recognised by the Courts as rational and lawful. It is also important to factor in that NHS healthcare and education for children is provided free of charge.  

You can see details on this on the link below: 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-on-review-of-cash-allowance-paid-to-asylum-seekers 

If you would like to discuss this further or any other matter, then please do not hesitate to contact me.  

cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk 

 

Newspaper column 1 April 2021 - the road to recovery

This week has seen further restrictions ease as we continue on our roadmap to recovery. From Monday the ‘stay at home’ rule has ended but many restrictions will remain in place. People should continue to work from home where they can and minimise the number of journeys they make where possible, avoiding travel at the busiest times and routes.

Outdoor sports facilities such as tennis and basketball courts, and open-air swimming pools, are also now able to reopen, and people will be able to take part in formally organised outdoor sports.

Finally, and a step that will be welcomed by many ahead of the Easter weekend, outdoor gatherings (including in private gardens) of either 6 people (the Rule of 6) or 2 households are also now allowed, making it easier for us to meet with our friends and families outside.

These easings are only possible because of the continued success of the vaccine programme and it is crucially important that we continue to stick to the rules and do all we can to prevent another wave of the virus.

In more good news, and following what I wrote in my column last week about my work with the Ocean Conservation All Party Parliamentary Group on Monday I was pleased to see the Government confirm that measures to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows will be put into law.

This follows our backing of Philip Dunne’s Sewage Private Members Bill in 2020 and DEFRA agreeing to working with him on shared ambitions to tackle high levels of sewage in our rivers.

This is fantastic news and now a number of key policies will be made law. This will create three key duties to oversee some of the changes needed to improve our water environment:

· a duty on government to publish a plan by September 2022 to reduce sewage discharges from storm overflows;

· a duty on government to report to Parliament on progress on implementing the plan; and

· a duty on water companies to publish data on storm overflow operation on an annual basis.

Along with work started last year by the Storm Overflows Taskforce, to bring together government, the water industry, regulators and environmental NGOs to accelerate progress in this area, these are all really positive steps to reduce sewage getting into our waterways. There will still be more to do but these are all really positive steps and ones I am happy to have been involved with bringing into being.

As ever, if you need my assistance with anything then my team and I are here to help. Please get in touch with me by email at Cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk , or by telephone on 01872 229698.

 

Cancel Israel Apartheid Week Campaign Response

Thank you to the many constituents who have recently got in touch with the Cancel Israel Apartheid Week campaign.

I passed on concerns raised in this specific campaign to the Department for Education. I was pleased to receive a letter reply from Michelle Donelan – The Minister of State for Universities.

She stated:

‘Dear Cherilyn,

Thank you for your email of 19 March, on behalf of your constituent, about the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and ‘Israel Apartheid Week’.

The government expects higher education (HE) providers to be at the forefront of tackling the issue of antisemitism, making sure that HE is a genuinely fulfilling and welcoming experience for everyone. Providers are independent and autonomous organisations which are responsible for the management of their own affairs and for meeting their duties under the law, including those relating to freedom of expression and equalities. All HE providers should discharge their responsibilities fully and have robust policies and procedures in place to comply with the law, to investigate and swiftly address hate crime, including any antisemitic incidents that are reported. 

The government has asked all English HE providers registered with the Office for Students (OfS) to adopt the IHRA definition. Adopting this widely recognised definition sends a strong signal that HE providers take these issues seriously.

In 2019 the Communities Secretary wrote to all HE providers to urge them to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Most recently in October 2020, the Secretary of State for Education wrote to HE leaders to reiterate the importance of the definition and to urge all providers to consider adopting it. The government is pleased to report that at least 91 providers have now adopted the definition, and many more are preparing to adopt it or in the process of considering adoption.

Nevertheless, further progress is still needed to eradicate antisemitism. This is why, in the Secretary of State for Education’s most recent strategic guidance letter, the government asked the Office for Students (OfS) to undertake a scoping exercise, to identify providers which are reluctant to adopt the definition.

The letter asked the OfS to consider introducing mandatory reporting of antisemitic incident numbers by providers, with the aim of ensuring a robust evidence base, which the OfS can then use to effectively regulate in this area. The Secretary of State also asked the OfS to ensure that, if antisemitic incidents do occur at a provider, when considering what sanctions to apply, they should take into account whether the provider has adopted the IHRA definition.

The government will continue to encourage HE providers to do all they can to stamp out antisemitism, harassment and hatred. The government is clear that HE should be a welcoming environment for all students, regardless of faith or race. Lord Mann has been working in his role as the independent advisor on antisemitism to the government. Through this, Lord Mann has provided advice to government on the most effective methods to tackle antisemitism, including in civil society and HE. In addition, the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently funded the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) to support their project to combat antisemitism on university campuses.

Your constituent’s correspondence also refers to concerns over events occurring under the banner of Israel Apartheid Week. It is crucial that HE providers handle such events appropriately, taking into account the legal position and the need to balance expectations and legislation on free speech as well as those relating to antisemitism and harassment.

We expect HE providers to have clearly set out procedures and policies for events and for the hosting of external speakers. This allows for open and transparent events with challenge and debate and will ensure that lawful speech can occur on campuses.

The government is clear that almost any restriction of lawful speech and/or academic freedom goes against the fundamental principles of the English HE sector. All staff and students should feel safe to challenge conventional wisdom by putting forward and discussing ideas within the law that may be controversial, unpalatable or even offensive. The right to freedom of speech is not an absolute right - it does not include the right to harass others or incite others to violence or terrorism. Universities also have responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 regarding discrimination and harassment, as well as under the Prevent Duty. Universities must balance the exercise of their legal duties on a case-by-case basis.

All HE providers should have in place procedures for handling student complaints and if the student is unhappy with their experience, they should use those processes to complain formally to their provider outlining their concerns. Where a student complaint cannot be resolved through the institution’s complaint process, a student at a provider in England or Wales can ask for their complaint to be reviewed by an independent body - the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA).

We will continue to work across government to ensure that racism and religious hatred of any kind is not tolerated anywhere, including in our world-leading universities.

Thank you for writing on this important matter.’

I hope that the response from the Minister is reassuring. If you would like to discuss this further or any other matter, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk

Trade Bill - Genocide Amendment vote 22nd March

 

Thank you to the many constituents who have recently got in touch regarding the genocide amendment in the Trade Bill.

The government is entirely committed to ensuring that its trade policy is consistent with our international human rights obligations and that we take the issue of genocide extremely seriously. I supported the amendment tabled by Sir Bob Neill, Chair of the Justice Select Committee, which was agreed in the House of Commons on 9 February.

I believe that Sir Bob Neill’s amendment offers the best way forward on this issue and amounts to a proportionate, sensible, and substantive compromise. It will ensure that if the responsible Committees publish a report which states there exist credible reports of genocide that may be occurring in the territory of a country with which we are proposing a new free trade agreement, Parliament will have an opportunity to insist on a debate and vote on the issue. The government would first respond in writing to set out its position and, if further requested by the Committee, the government would be bound by law to make time for a debate and vote in Parliament. The responsible Commons Committee will have the power, under the amendment, to draft the wording for the substantive motion for Commons debate, while in the Lords it would be a motion to take note of the responsible Lords Committee’s report.

The Neill Amendment also opens the way for both Houses to determine the appropriate committee procedures for such an inquiry. This respects the exclusive cognisance of both Houses of Parliament to regulate their own procedures. The government has said that it is willing to work with Parliament and relevant Select Committee chairs should they choose to establish new joint committees or sub-committees, or to engage the expertise of former members of the judiciary. While it is for Parliament to decide how best to engage such expertise, the government is willing to work with Parliament to develop a sensible and effective process provided it does not contravene our settled policy on genocide determination.

I could not support the other genocide amendment. It would not have any practical effect on stopping genocide or human rights abuses nor would it have any effect on our trade policy.

The Rule of Law is not strengthened by handing over what should be a decision for democratically elected officials to the courts.

You can also see one of my previous posts on the Trade Bill from January on the link below:

https://cherilynmackrorymp.blogspot.com/2021/01/trade-bill-amendments.html

If you would like to discuss this further or any other matter, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

cherilyn.mackrory.mp@parliament.uk