The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ronnie Cowan on 2016-06-24.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of linking the annual financial contribution of gambling licence holders for research into, prevention of and treatment for gambling addiction linked to their profit margins.
Tracey Crouch
I refer the Hon Member to the answer to PQ 40986.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ronnie Cowan on 2015-12-03.
To ask the Prime Minister, if the Government will bring forward legislative proposals to ensure any future decisions to deploy the armed forces requires a full debate and vote within the House.
Mr David Cameron
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) on 26 November 2015, Official Report, column 1509.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ronnie Cowan on 2016-02-25.
To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, on how many occasions he or officials of his Department have met representatives of high street bookmakers to discuss gambling since May 2015.
David Evennett
Details of my and the Minister for Sport and Tourism’s meetings with representatives of the bookmaking industry are available via the Department’s transparency returns, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/search?q=quarterly+ministerial+returns&filter_organisations%5B%5D=department-for-culture-media-sport
In addition, my officials have met representatives of bookmakers on numerous occasions to discuss issues related to gambling.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ronnie Cowan on 2016-07-06.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether new arrangements are to be introduced for delivering the Nuclear Warhead Capability Sustainment Programme.
Michael Fallon
As announced in the Written Ministerial Statement on 21 April 2016 (HCWS689), the contract between the Ministry of Defence and AWE Management Limited (AWEML) has been reviewed and now falls under the Single Source Procurement Framework which is overseen by the Single Source Regulations Office.
As a result of the review, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has greater control over the programme, while ensuring that AWE continues to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. The contract between MOD and AWEML also provides the opportunity for higher performance incentives, as well as reductions if targets are not met.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ronnie Cowan on 2015-12-14.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many shipbuilding jobs will be supported by the construction of each of the (a) eight Type 26 anti-submarine frigates that are scheduled to be ordered and (b) proposed five new frigates to be developed under the new light frigate programme.
Mr Philip Dunne
We have begun the detailed work to take forward the Type 26 Global Combat Ship and the new general purpose frigate programmes outlined in the White Paper ‘National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 (Cmd 9161)’. It is too early to say how many jobs will be sustained by these programmes.
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ronnie Cowan on 2016-03-21.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many personal independence payment claimants there were in Inverclyde in 2015.
Justin Tomlinson
Information on the number of claimants in receipt of Personal Independence Payment, by month and a range of geographic breakdowns, including parliamentary constituency, is available from Stat-Xplore. https://stat-xplore.dwp.gov.uk/
“
The below Parliamentary question was asked by Ronnie Cowan on 2016-07-12.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will make it his policy to ensure that his Department undertakes research into the potential merits of a universal basic income.
Damian Hinds
We have no current plans to conduct research on this topic.
The speech made by Ronnie Cowan, the SNP MP for Inverclyde, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.
Mr Deputy Speaker:
“That this House believes it should be for the Scottish people to determine the future constitutional status of Scotland; and accordingly makes provision as set out in this Order”.
It is hard to believe that we even have to make that request. It is galling to think that my nation is expected to ask permission from another country to have control over its own constitutional status. It is frustrating, too, to witness the damage being done to individuals, families and communities in Scotland by the austerity policies of the current Conservative and Unionist UK Government. The SNP Scottish Government have mitigated the damage to the tune of billions of pounds; all that could have been spent elsewhere if this place had truly, as it claims, been compassionate when legislating. But it has not, and time and again the Scottish Government take the strain.
As has already been pointed out, there is of course a range of topics that we could have debated today: the damage forced on Scotland by Brexit; the austerity policies forced on Scotland by this Government; the dreadful immigration policies that they continue to ramp up; the fact that in the 21st century our constituents have to decide whether to heat or eat; and so on. We know that the outcomes of each and every one of those things is determined by the actions taken by the Conservative and Unionist UK Government here at Westminster. There is no point in us continually addressing the symptoms when the cause is staring us in the face.
We would love to debate all those issues in a Holyrood with the powers to address them. Westminster will deny us this request—we know that—and that is indicative of their fear: “Why do the SNP keep asking? It knows we won’t allow it.” They just do not get it. That is partially because some MPs who represent Scottish seats will back up the UK Government when they pronounce their intention to rule over Scotland. That servile attitude only empowers Westminster.
I noticed yesterday that the front page of the Scottish edition of The Times newspaper had a quarter-page story with the headline “Scots back independence for fourth poll in row”, but the edition that I saw in the Tea Room had a different story in that space: ironically, it was “Last-minute talks to halt nurse strike break down”—not a story The Times could have run in Scotland as the SNP Government have successfully come to an agreement on that issue in Scotland. The lack of the independence poll result on that front page reminded me how little engagement Members here have with Scotland and Scottish issues—as can be seen today by the empty spaces on their Benches. Unless we bring it to the table, it is not on the menu. So rather than retreating to a bunker and repeating the line, “You had your referendum, and it was once in a generation,” the UK Government would do well to engage with the devolved powers in an equal and respectful manner. Share the platform with us and respect our right to ask the people of Scotland.
The pressure is building up behind the UK Government’s dam of denial, and when the dam bursts, they do not want to be standing under it. It will wash them away and they will be replaced with an independent Scottish Government working for all of the people in our free, sovereign nation. The UK Government’s choice is not, “What is the direction of travel?” but whether they want to be part of that democratic process, or whether they still live in fear of democracy?
The speech made by Ronnie Cowan, the SNP MP for Inverclyde, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.
I shall be extremely brief. I will support both amendments but do not believe either of them goes far enough. In an ideal world we would all conduct ourselves in public and private by principles conducive not just to our own benefit and wellbeing, but to the benefit of the wider community, but we do not, so we have laws that enable the prosecution of lawbreakers.
In Parliament we like to think we adhere to standards and principles, and we primarily refer to the code of conduct for those in public life; as we all know, the seven principles of public life are the Nolan principles, but like all guidelines, memorandums of understanding and conventions, the Nolan principles only work if individuals have the self-discipline and moral compass to adhere to them. When they do not, the abuse of their position is often clear for everyone to see, but rather than hold them to account, this place too often turns a blind eye or gently reprimands them with a rap on the knuckles.
Unfortunately, past behaviour leads me to believe that we could extend the Nolan principles to 107 principles and those who currently adhere to them would, but those who think they are above and beyond such practices as self-control would ignore them all because they feel entitled to do so. In ministerial and Members’ registers of financial interest, transparency is crucial and that information must be provided in a timely fashion. Why would it not be? Why is it not already? As many MPs have shown time and again during covid, it is one set of standards for them and one set for everybody else.
In summary, while we rely on principles and guidelines and conventions, some MPs will walk right through them, and the time for navel gazing is over.
The speech made by Ronnie Cowan, the SNP MP for Inverclyde, in the House of Commons on 12 December 2022.
When we stand for election, every one of us appeals to the electorate to get out and vote. We impress on them how important it is that they use their democratic right to express their will through the ballot box. We want bigger turnouts and we seek more and better engagement, yet voter ID will have a detrimental effect on turnouts. We know that because we can measure it.
The UK Government have tried on several occasions to justify voter identification cards by stating that they already exist within the UK: they are used in Northern Ireland. What they cannot say with any conviction is that they have been a success in Northern Ireland. In fact, the turnout in the first election in Northern Ireland after photographic ID was introduced was 2.3% down. If we extrapolate from the data to a UK general election, approximately 1.1 million people would not vote. That would not fall evenly across the population, so who is it that we are disenfranchising?
Angela Kitching, head of external affairs at Age UK, points out that the Government’s own research has found that 6% of people over 70 would have problems with presenting the right kind of ID. It is reasonable to believe that that estimate is low, because the UK Government did not include the 500,000 people in care homes and sheltered accommodation in their research. It is no surprise that Angela Kitching has described the idea as being “for the fairies”.
The Royal National Institute of Blind People says that
“this will disproportionately disenfranchise blind and partially sighted people, particularly older blind and partially sighted people.”
The Royal Mencap Society has raised concerns that
“voter ID could simply result in yet another barrier to people with a learning disability participating in elections.”
Sense, the national charity that supports people with complex disabilities, has also raised concerns, saying:
“Given the barriers that already face disabled people while voting, Sense is concerned that this could make it harder for some disabled people to vote.”
Concerns have been raised by groups representing LGBTQ+ communities, including the LGBT Foundation, Mermaids and Stonewall. The Runnymede Trust has raised concerns that introducing a voter ID requirement would add further barriers to voting for black and ethnic minority groups.
Those groups should not be disadvantaged. Their votes and their views are not worth less. Pilots have shown that 30% of people who had their ballot paper refused for lack of ID did not return later with an ID to vote. Were all those people trying to impersonate someone? I do not think so.
As has been mentioned, this measure will disproportionately impact younger voters. ID such as an Oyster 60+ card is valid, but an Oyster 18+ card is not. Despite the calls for railcards or student IDs to be accepted, the Government have refused.
Of course, change attracts a financial cost. Disappointingly, the UK Government do not know how much this change will cost. Their assessment is £150 million, based on an assumed take-up of 2%, but a UK Government survey found that 31% of people said they would apply for a voter ID card. The impact assessment estimates that an additional £10.2 million should be added for each additional percentage point, which brings the cost of that 31% to £450 million.
In truth, we do not know, because the people surveyed were not informed of the existing photographic ID that would be acceptable, nor were they informed that out-of-date photographic ID would be acceptable. There is more confusion on which we are supposed to legislate: we need a clearer explanation of how having a period of validity for a voter card could work if its expiry date was not a bar to using it for its sole purpose at a polling station.
What is driving this change? Photographic voter ID is supposed to be required to address the issue of personation —occasions when somebody pretends to be another elector and votes on their behalf. We are asking people who work a very long day in polling places to verify visually that each voter looks like the photo ID that they present and, if they are not happy, to refuse that person the right to vote. That is a burden that will weigh heavily on many of those who, until now, have diligently staffed polling places.
For us to go to such lengths as introducing photographic voter ID, placing such a burden on electoral staff and risking disenfranchising 1.1 million voters, personation would have to be a massive problem. Yet, as the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, with more than 58 million votes cast in elections in 2019, there were 33 counts of personation at a polling station. As we have heard, that comprises 0.000057%. When we consider the number of people cautioned for or convicted of personation, the proportion is reduced to 0.0000035% of votes cast. This is a sledgehammer looking for a nut to crack. It is a solution looking for a problem. The long and short of it is that this legislation has been pushed through with little substantial evidence of its value.
For as long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom and Westminster has the power to affect the voting franchise and the electoral process in Scotland—even if that involves elections to this place—we in the Scottish National party will hold Westminster to account, and will demand that any changes must be transparent, considered, constructive and inclusive. The motion does not satisfy those criteria.