15th September 2019

Dear Member

Since having the privilege of representing you in Parliament I have always put the interests and concerns of my constituents first. I have been a member of the Labour Party for more than 50 years and share its values and am proud of the achievements of Labour Governments, particularly the 1945-51 Government which transformed our war-torn country with a radical socialist programme, including the creation of the National Health Service and the Welfare State.

There have been times, however, when I have disagreed with the "party line" and I have never been afraid to vote against the "whip", as have other independently minded MP's including Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. I believe that whilst it is important to show allegiance to one’s party, more and more people want MPs who are prepared to take an independent stand rather than MPs who blindly vote in Parliament the way the whips tell them. I shall give a couple of instances where I have voted against the official party whip. 

With regard to the Trident nuclear missile deterrent Labour Party policy is to renew. I am against this and I voted against it in Parliament. We live in a dangerous world, but to spend £100 billion on upgrading our 4 nuclear submarines is not money well spent, particularly when our nuclear deterrent is not independent but reliant on the United States. We have to lease the missiles from the USA and send the submarines to the US naval base in Georgia to have them fitted! Another example is HS2. 

All the other Birmingham MPs supported the official Labour line to back Government policy on HS2. I spoke and voted against HS2 because I felt that the economic and business case was flawed, and I thought it would end up massively over budget. This has proven to be the case and the Government are now reviewing the viability of the whole project. I said from the beginning that this sort of money would be better spent on improving transport connectivity between the east and west of our country and the building of an underground, or other similar transit system, in Birmingham similar to the one in London. We now have the ridiculous situation where the HS2 company, in order to contain the cost of this vanity project, have suggested that the speed of the trains could be reduced, which undermines the whole justification for the project! And now on to Brexit. 

After the Referendum result was announced I made it plain that, now that representative democracy had been restored, irrespective of my personal views, I would represent the clear majority opinion in my constituency, and I would:

1. Not vote to trigger Article 50. And I did not. 

2. That I would press for any agreed deal to be put to a vote in Parliament. And I did.

3. That the final agreed deal should be put back to the electorate in another referendum.

If you look at my voting record you will see that is exactly what I have done. 

The majority in all the wards of my constituency were in favour of Remain and it is obvious that the clear majority opinion, particularly in the Moseley and Kings Heath area is that:

1. The Referendum result should be annulled and Article 50 rescinded.

2. If this is not achievable, then another referendum should be held. 

3. If this is not achievable, then any final agreed deal should be put back to the people of the UK in another referendum, with only 2 options on the ballot paper – to agree the deal or to Remain. 

This is the way that I have voted since the Referendum and this is the way I will continue to vote, irrespective of my personal opinions, because that is what I believe representative democracy is about. 

I will now turn to the issue of parental involvement in the teaching of the Equality Act to primary school children. The Act, which I supported and voted for, has nine protected characteristics. They are age; disability; gender assignment; marriage and civil partnerships; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex and sexual orientation. Recognising that some of these “characteristics” may be challenging for some parents the Ministerial and DFE guidance says that primary schools should take into account the religious and cultural views of parents and that these nine characteristics could be taught to children at any age between 4 and 11 on an “age appropriateness” basis. This seems eminently sensible to me and I supported the guidance. I said this in the debate I initiated in the House of Commons on the 25th June. 

I also supported, and voted for, the Children and Social Care Act 2017 which puts relationship, and sex education on a statutory footing and obliges all primary schools to teach age appropriate sex and relationship education. 

Unfortunately, some groups and individuals have deliberately misrepresented and misinterpreted my views and labelled myself, parents and anybody else who supports the “age appropriate” ministerial guidance as homophobic and have pursued a campaign of character assassination through social media. I cannot do anything about that, but I make no apology for supporting the rights of parents and while I have a great deal of respect for teachers, who have extremely demanding jobs, I do not accept that anyone of us are infallible and always right. 

I emphasise once more that I fully support children being taught the “nine characteristics” to ensure they do not grow up with any prejudiced attitudes towards others and, to recognise that families can be diverse, for example, with some children having two dads or two mums. I also support the Ministerial and DFE guidance, which says, that where parents do have concerns, schools should work with them to ensure cultural and religious sensitivities are considered and respected without undermining the basis of the Equality Act itself.  

Finally, I would like mention Kashmir. Ever since I have been an MP I have, at every opportunity, spoken out and pressed for self-determination for the people of Kashmir – on both sides of the “line of control.” Sometimes what I have said has been controversial, as when I spoke out on the Kashmir issue at the IPU Conference in New Delhi. I did this because I feel that a grave injustice was done to the Kashmiri people in 1948 when partition took place and I can assure you that if I am returned to parliament, I will continue to support the right of the Kashmiri people to have self-determination.

Colleagues, since I was first elected, I have tried to give the best possible service to my constituents. I treat everybody with respect, and I do not give favouritism to any group. I have tried to do my best to help people to resolve problems but I always tell people the truth, as I see it, because I do not want to give false hope when, in my judgement, a case or an issue is not going to be resolved for the benefit of the constituent. I think people appreciate being told the truth, as I see it, and I have been humbled and touched by the many letters and emails of appreciation that I have received over the years.

I hope that you can give me your support in the reselection. 

Kind regards

 

Roger Godsiff

Member of Parliament

Birmingham Hall Green Constituency