Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and John Hayes

Report stage
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

The court can take evidence, but what it should not be doing is fishing for further information, of a wider variety, which opens up consideration of the original process, rather than checking whether that process was right and proper; it is a subtle difference but a fundamental one in terms of the change in the way courts have gone about their business.

Our new clause addresses this issue, as the Minister will know. Jonathan Sumption is the judge who perhaps more than any other has set out the proper functions of the courts in relation to Parliament. In his Reith lecture, he said:

“It is the proper function of the Courts to stop governments exceeding or abusing their legal powers.”

That is absolutely what JR should be, but I fear that it is being compromised by the changes that are taking place as a result of judicial activism. So, mindful of the Attorney General’s advice on this and of the fact that the Government clearly are in tune with that advice—otherwise, they would not have introduced this Bill in the first place—I urge them to accept the amendments, in order to make this Bill be as good as it can be. Rather than waiting for another bus to come along, we should get on this one and get to the destination we all seek.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Much of this Bill has no impact on Scotland or our separate courts and legal system, so our amendments and my comments are focused on the parts that do, which primarily deal with judicial review. The parts of the Bill I will address today are not just bad; they are unnecessary and dangerous, and they lay the groundwork for the Government to insulate themselves and future Governments from proper scrutiny and accountability. I am sure that is on their personal wish list given current events, but we ought to make policy for generations, for everyone and not for one iteration of one political party.

I sat through 11 sittings of the Public Bill Committee and waited for the Government to persuade me that, for example, removing Cart JR was necessary, but instead I heard odds and sods of anecdotal evidence, lots of legal jargon and the phrase “three bites of the cherry” a total of 62 times, with the implication that somehow those using Cart JR had greater access to justice—that simply is not true. Cart JR is not about saying, “I don’t like the decision you've come to, let’s try again for a different judgement.” It is about looking at the situation where, first, a serious error of law may have been committed in the first-tier tribunal, and then the upper tribunal has failed to recognise and correct the error. It could be that the first-tier tribunal failed to consider or misinterpreted the evidence, or that the facts are inconsistent with the decision, but the point is: it happens, mistakes are made and Cart JRs provide a vital safeguard to correct these errors in cases where the stakes can be incredibly high. Rather than this being a “third bite of the cherry”, the reality is that the first bite was not even a slither—a mistake was made. Mistakes do not just affect the person in question; the ramifications are wider. Similarly, Cart JRs not only give one person who has appealed the opportunity to have their case considered properly, but they catch out errors and injustices, benefiting the system as a whole. Cart JRs have been used to ensure that disabled people are given the right benefit entitlement; they have stopped people being made homeless; and they have prevented the deportation of people to countries where they faced certain death. I am currently waiting to attend a first-tier tribunal on behalf of a family member. Given my knowledge of her and of the social security system, I am 100% certain of her entitlement and equally certain it will only fail if a mistake is made when considering the evidence. If that happens, surely my family member deserves the right to have it rectified—surely everybody has that right.

The thing is: the Government know that the impact will be far greater on those who are most vulnerable. In their own impact statement for this Bill, they admit that abolishing Cart would mean that

“those who do lose out…are more likely to have particular protected characteristics, for example in respect of race and/or religion or belief.”

So anyone voting for this ought to be aware and be honest with their constituents that they are consciously voting to the detriment of their constituents with protected characteristics. It is estimated that this will save only £364,000 to £402,000 a year. That is the cost of protecting the rights of some of the most vulnerable people. It is not much to ask for, is it? Let us not pretend that this is about being prudent with the public purse after writing off £4.3 billion of fraudulent covid claims last year.

We will vote against this terrible Bill, but if it does go ahead, our amendments 42 and 43 would protect the Scottish courts and tribunals from clause 2. We in Scotland do not want it, the legal profession does not want it, the Scottish Government do not want it, and I guarantee that the people of Scotland do not want it. This Government are trying very hard to demonstrate their alleged respect for Scotland—in words if not in actions—as the Scottish Government lay the groundwork for an independence referendum; some would say, because of the independence referendum. Well, now is their chance. Now is the chance for all the parties in this place to show Scotland just how much respect they have for our separate and distinct legal system and our right to protect it, and ourselves, from this legislation.

My final thoughts on clause 2 relate to the way in which the Government intend to make this happen—the legal framework. The Government say that the use of an ouster clause will set a precedent for removing certain cases or areas out of the scope of judicial review, but what does that mean? It means that in future they intend to cherry-pick areas that they would rather not see judicially reviewed, which sounds every bit as dangerous as it is. The rule of law and the separation of powers are hallmarks of an effective democracy; we cannot allow the Government to pick and choose where and how they face judicial scrutiny. As Liberty reminds us in its briefing, this Bill is passing through Parliament at the same time as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Elections Bill, to name but a few. Now more than ever, we need the ability and deserve the right to hold the Government and public bodies to account.

Clause 1, on suspended quashing orders and prospective-only remedies, does not extend to Scottish courts and will not apply directly, but it will affect UK-wide legislation to which we are all subject. It will also mean that many more people across these islands may choose Scottish courts, and while I am always happy to promote Scotland and our separate legal system, there may be a capacity issue that has not been discussed or even considered.

Along with others, I have raised the landmark Unison judicial review of 2017 a number of times. The Supreme Court agreed that the fees for access to justice via employment tribunals were unlawful, so everyone who had paid them was refunded, and the Government were no longer allowed to charge the fees from the moment of that judgment. Let us consider what would happen if the Bill were passed and if, instead of seeking a judicial review in 2017, Unison did so this year and, crucially, secured the same decision: the decision that the workers were right, and that what the Government were doing was unlawful. The difference is that if this Bill is enacted, no one initiating a judicial review will have their fees refunded and no one who has already been forced to pay up to £1,200 for an employment tribunal will be refunded either, despite the court’s agreeing that they have been subject to something unlawful. Anyone subsequently requiring an employment tribunal will still have to pay the unlawful fees, and in the meantime the Government will be able to tweak the legislation and make the unlawful lawful. Who would or could go to the expense and trouble of seeking a judicial review given the prospect of no remedy, no justice, and no change in their or anyone else’s situation?

The delaying of a quashing order is, in certain circumstances, the appropriate path to follow, and that is why the courts already have that option. The issue is that it is currently an option, and the clause seeks to make it a presumption. The Independent Review of Administrative Law, which has been largely ignored in respect of its recommendations for judicial review, suggested that “giving courts the option” was enough, but here we see the Government determined to fetter judicial discretion and tie the hands of judges. Our amendment would ensure that it would once more be the case that judges “may” rather than “must” use such delays, and if the Government continue to argue that they are not trying to tie the hands of the judges, they will surely support it tonight.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and John Hayes

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

Anne McLaughlin

-

I will be brief. Basically, I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith and share the concerns about this being the second ouster clause in the Bill. I feel it is a bit early to use the legal framework to oust Cart already.

I hope the Government will wait for the Bill to be enacted before trying that. I agree that the new clause is not the way to go about amending this. Such a provision should be a headline measure in a Bill; I think the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—that is a lovely constituency name—said himself that this would ordinarily be in a new Bill. I understand the argument that there is not an awful lot of time for new legislation, but I think this measure needs to be debated seriously and properly. Parliament needs a full understanding of the issues, following a full consultation.

I would argue an awful lot harder and longer than that, first, if I thought the Government were about to support the new clause, and secondly, if I thought anybody would listen. [Interruption.] I do not mean if they would listen to me; I mean if I thought we would ever win a vote in this place. The Government should be very careful in reversing that decision and should think about the consequences of it. I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Hammersmith has said.

Sir John Hayes

- - Excerpts

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so kind to me and my constituency, and my constituents by extension. It is clear that the Attorney General supports the new clause because she drew particular attention to the character of the Privacy International case in her recent speech on these matters. Inasmuch as she is the most senior Law Officer of the Government, whatever the Minister might say today—I appreciate that he may want to hold fire, to some degree—it is clear that the Attorney General understands and supports my argument.

Anne McLaughlin

-

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention was aimed at me or the Minister. If he was aiming it at me, all I will say is that it would not be the first, second, third, fourth or fifth way in which I disagreed with the Attorney General in her reckoning. I will sit down and allow others to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

Sir John Hayes

- - Excerpts

Further to that point of order, Mr Rosindell. On behalf of the Back-Bench Members on this side of the Committee—and I hope others too—I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister. I served as a shadow Minister and a Minister for 19 years and I know how hard it is, particularly from the other side of the Committee, to maintain the progress of debate and to retain the calibre and character of scrutiny.

I thank the Minister for the way he has gone about his business, and the shadow team for the way they have gone about theirs. I wish the hon. Member for Stockton North well, as he has now fallen ill. I also thank you, Mr Rosindell, and your fellow Chairman, and all others who have made the Bill proceedings possible.

Anne McLaughlin

-

Further to that point of order, Mr Rosindell. I want to reiterate what everybody else has said and thank everybody involved. I wish the hon. Member for Stockton North well and I hope that he recovers by a week today, St Andrew’s day, because he will be wanting to celebrate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East—I have finally got the constituency name. That is not as great a constituency name as South Holland and The Deepings, however. I am going to visit, and I will let the right hon. Gentleman know when I do.

This has been a really interesting Bill Committee. I used to resist going on Bill Committees, but I came from the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee straight to this one, and they are the best bit of the job, because they are probably the only time we really get an in-depth understanding of what we are doing. A lot of the time, we have to skim through things because there is so much to consider. I look forward to the next Bill Committee.

I thank the Clerks and everyone involved, including the Doorkeepers. For those who are not speaking and are not involved in the debates, it must be really boring having to sit there and listen to it all. There are no nods of agreement there, but I can pick the answer up telepathically. If I have missed anyone in my thanks, I am sorry—oh, the Chairs. Thank you very much; thank you again for your forbearance, Mr Rosindell, when I was injured. I am still injured, but am recovering.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and John Hayes

Committee stage
Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will be brief. Basically, I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith and share the concerns about this being the second ouster clause in the Bill. I feel it is a bit early to use the legal framework to oust Cart already.

I hope the Government will wait for the Bill to be enacted before trying that. I agree that the new clause is not the way to go about amending this. Such a provision should be a headline measure in a Bill; I think the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—that is a lovely constituency name—said himself that this would ordinarily be in a new Bill. I understand the argument that there is not an awful lot of time for new legislation, but I think this measure needs to be debated seriously and properly. Parliament needs a full understanding of the issues, following a full consultation.

I would argue an awful lot harder and longer than that, first, if I thought the Government were about to support the new clause, and secondly, if I thought anybody would listen. [Interruption.] I do not mean if they would listen to me; I mean if I thought we would ever win a vote in this place. The Government should be very careful in reversing that decision and should think about the consequences of it. I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Hammersmith has said.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for being so kind to me and my constituency, and my constituents by extension. It is clear that the Attorney General supports the new clause because she drew particular attention to the character of the Privacy International case in her recent speech on these matters. Inasmuch as she is the most senior Law Officer of the Government, whatever the Minister might say today—I appreciate that he may want to hold fire, to some degree—it is clear that the Attorney General understands and supports my argument.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention was aimed at me or the Minister. If he was aiming it at me, all I will say is that it would not be the first, second, third, fourth or fifth way in which I disagreed with the Attorney General in her reckoning. I will sit down and allow others to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

Further to that point of order, Mr Rosindell. On behalf of the Back-Bench Members on this side of the Committee—and I hope others too—I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister. I served as a shadow Minister and a Minister for 19 years and I know how hard it is, particularly from the other side of the Committee, to maintain the progress of debate and to retain the calibre and character of scrutiny.

I thank the Minister for the way he has gone about his business, and the shadow team for the way they have gone about theirs. I wish the hon. Member for Stockton North well, as he has now fallen ill. I also thank you, Mr Rosindell, and your fellow Chairman, and all others who have made the Bill proceedings possible.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Further to that point of order, Mr Rosindell. I want to reiterate what everybody else has said and thank everybody involved. I wish the hon. Member for Stockton North well and I hope that he recovers by a week today, St Andrew’s day, because he will be wanting to celebrate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East—I have finally got the constituency name. That is not as great a constituency name as South Holland and The Deepings, however. I am going to visit, and I will let the right hon. Gentleman know when I do.

This has been a really interesting Bill Committee. I used to resist going on Bill Committees, but I came from the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee straight to this one, and they are the best bit of the job, because they are probably the only time we really get an in-depth understanding of what we are doing. A lot of the time, we have to skim through things because there is so much to consider. I look forward to the next Bill Committee.

I thank the Clerks and everyone involved, including the Doorkeepers. For those who are not speaking and are not involved in the debates, it must be really boring having to sit there and listen to it all. There are no nods of agreement there, but I can pick the answer up telepathically. If I have missed anyone in my thanks, I am sorry—oh, the Chairs. Thank you very much; thank you again for your forbearance, Mr Rosindell, when I was injured. I am still injured, but am recovering.

Judicial Review and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and John Hayes

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th November 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Anne McLaughlin]

I think the hon. Member is trying to trivialise what we are talking about and I am not going to entertain it any longer. To my mind, the justice system should not accept that sometimes people will end up dead because we did not get it right. We should be striving for justice always, not accepting injustice. I am not entirely sure that Government Members are interested, but I am going to look at some more examples given by ILPA, although I could probably give numerous examples involving my own constituents.

There is the woman from Uganda who could not live there because she is a lesbian. The first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal refused her case and her renewed permission to appeal because they received a letter from her saying, “I have come here for a job. I am not a lesbian. Sorry I am a liar.” Anybody can see that that letter did not come from her. The upper tribunal judge admired her candour, but it was not her who wrote it; it was the appellant’s homophobic housemate. We must bear it in mind that people are given housemates when in the asylum system; they do not go and choose them. Thankfully, ILPA stepped in, she was given the right to a judicial review and won her case. She is able to live as who she is and the person she is, not having to hide from violence or homophobia, thanks to judicial review.

[Sir John Hayes]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady will provide some clarity about the parameters within which she believes the system should work. Presumably, she cannot be saying that there should be unlimited rights of appeal. She cannot be saying that there should be no structure around how people can access courts and use them. She cannot be saying that every person who arrives in Britain should be able to appeal again and again. There must be some limits, some parameters, some rules and some grounds. What are they?

[Anne McLaughlin]

We have them already. I am perfectly happy with what is in place. It is the right hon. Gentleman’s Government who seek to change that and take away people’s access to justice. It is not me who is trying to change it. I am the one trying to stop them changing it and taking away people’s rights.

I will tell the Committee about another case. The claimant was in a relationship with a British citizen, and they had two children who were also British citizens, but the claimant’s partner suffered from serious health conditions. The claimant’s argument that removal would breach their right to respect for family life was dismissed by the first-tier tribunal and permission to appeal was refused. Following a Cart judicial review—the thing that Government Members want to take away from these people—the decision was overturned. The upper tribunal allowed the appeal under article 8. However, without the Cart judicial review, the family would have been separated.

The final person I want to talk about, from the Public Law Project’s evidence, is a Sri Lankan national who feared persecution, partly because of his involvement in diaspora activities in the UK. His perception was that he would be viewed as someone who was seeking to destabilise the integrity of Sri Lanka. It was argued that the first-tier tribunal judge had acted procedurally unfairly in refusing to consider all the evidence, including valuable video evidence, when deciding that the appellant was not actively involved in diaspora activities as claimed. Permission to appeal was refused by both the first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal, but was finally granted on appeal, where it was considered that there were legal and compelling reasons for granting permission. An order was made quashing the upper tribunal refusing permission.

[Sir John Hayes]

I wonder whether the hon. Lady will give me one more bite of the cherry.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will finish this story. Before the hearing in the upper tribunal, the Home Office conceded the appeal and accepted that the appellant was a refugee. If Cart had not been an option, that man would have faced deportation and almost certain persecution. Having lived and worked in Sri Lanka, and having kept in touch with many people there and many Sri Lankans living here, I can tell Members that that man almost certainly would not still be here had he been deported and denied access to Cart judicial review—the thing the right hon. Gentleman wants to take away. I will let him come in and explain that.

[Sir John Hayes]

But 97% of these cases fail, and they fail on the grounds that the hon. Lady says she supports—she supports the existing system, as she made clear in her answer to my previous intervention. Given that she supports the existing system, and 97% of these cases fail, does she not recognise that something is going badly wrong?

When cases fail in respect of immigration, does she support the rapid deportation of people who have been through the system, sometimes more than once, and failed and had their case found to be wanting? Does she want those people who are found to be acting illegally to be deported, as we all do?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I have lost track of all the questions.

[Sir John Hayes]

I said 97% of cases fail. When they fail, those people have exhausted the legal avenues that the hon. Lady says she supports—the current system, criteria and means by which people can make their case. When immigration cases fail, does she support the speedy deportation of those people?

[Anne McLaughlin]

On the issue of 97% of the cases failing, if the decision-making processes at the beginning of the claim were better, we would not have all those people going through the tribunal system. I absolutely support improving the capacity and decision-making process in the Home Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

On a point of fact, could the hon. Lady tell us how many Cart cases are brought by disabled people?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Strangely enough, no I cannot. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us?

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady must know that over 90% of Cart cases are immigration cases, although it is possible that some of those people might themselves be disabled. If she then takes the fewer than 10% of cases that are not immigration cases, a small minority of those will be of the kind she is describing. Of course, the hon. Lady is right that when disabled people are disadvantaged and need recourse to law, they should have it. However, the idea that she is promulgating—that somehow the Government are acting in a way that is disadvantageous to significant numbers of disabled people in the way she is suggesting—is not only inaccurate but irresponsible.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I do not think I suggested that there were huge numbers of cases of people with disabilities. What I said was that there are huge numbers of people with disabilities and huge numbers of people who could have disabilities in the future, and that they will be denied access to justice if they do not get justice first time around. That happens so often.

[Sir John Hayes]

We could all have disabilities in the future.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Can I sit down and chat as well?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Is the right hon. Gentleman asking me to give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I have given up.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am very pleased to hear that the right hon. Member has given up. Feel free to intervene again. [Interruption.] I will say that, from a sedentary position, he says that there are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Sir John Hayes]

I was quoting scripture.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The right hon. Member can quote scripture at me all he likes. If we are going to talk about scripture, then we are going to talk about Christianity, which is surely about compassion. To say that it does not matter that this will affect people with disabilities because there are not that many of them who will be affected is just wrong.

[Sir John Hayes]

I did not say that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

That is what he implied. Anyway, I wanted to move on to ouster clauses.

Ouster clauses put decisions beyond the reach of the court. Despite the Government backing down after an outcry on proposals to include them in the Bill, they said:

“it is expected that the legal text that removes the Cart judgment will serve as a framework that can be replicated in other legislation.”

I agree with Amnesty’s proposition that the Government are explicitly using it as a test run for ouster clauses, and that it is a blatant and disturbing attempt to get rid of judicial oversight in other policy areas. As it also says, “The desire to get rid of judicial oversight in any area should be of the utmost concern to those who care about the rule of law and separation of powers.”

I suggest that we heed the warning of the Law Society of England and Wales that, “It is important to caution that ouster clauses have the effect of reducing legal accountability and preventing individuals who have been adversely affected from being able to secure a remedy.” They do not say anywhere, but there are not many of them, so let us not worry about it.

Judicial review may be inconvenient for the Government at times, but that is no justification for its removal. The implications of the Bill could be far-reaching, given the legal framework and its potential future use. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which I hope Members respect, said, “it is reasonable to say that ouster clauses are at odds with the rule of law.”

Finally, last week, in reference to the now former MP about whom the Standards Committee produced a report—I think all Members know what I am talking about—the Leader of the House said:

“It is not for me to judge him—others have done that—but was the process a fair one?”—[Official Report, 3 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 938.]

That is the crux of judicial review. If the Government believe that we do not need access to Cart judicial review, did those who used it to win and get justice—such as the Venezuelan man fleeing for his life, the child requiring lifesaving treatment or the family who could finally be together—not require it, or were they not worth it?

Black History Month

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and John Hayes

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

According to the philosopher Michael Oakeshott, civilisation

“begun in the primeval forests and extended and made more articulate in the course of centuries…is a conversation which goes on both in public and within each of ourselves.”

Conversation, of course, implies a discourse in which no one voice dominates, no one is shouted down and contrasting perspectives are heard and respected, even when agreement is unlikely and compromise unexplored. Yet, we now live in an age where many have no interest in a real conversation and where delight is taken in silencing dissenting voices. We live in an age where some talk of the importance of history, but really mean propaganda—when someone is suggesting, in essence, that people educate themselves, know the doctrine, learn the mantra and toe the line. In our brave new world, activist groups vie for attention by shouting ever louder in what can best be described as a competition of victimhood.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will not at the moment, but I will a little later.

Each group claims a spurious moral authority founded on its own sense of oppressed marginalisation. The historical truth is dismissed, in cultural Marxist terms, as a construct of persecutors: only they really understand the past and the present, and they now assert that others must be forced to be cleansed by acknowledging their guilt and by recognising their unconscious bias. The notion that we are defined by our race or sexuality is now so ubiquitous that we have become numb to just how disturbingly stultifying it really is. To confine and condense the identity of a unique individual made in the image of God to things over which they have no choice—their gender or their race—is sorrowfully lacking in perspective and ambition.

Some of my colleagues may be reluctant to engage in this debate, but that is not true of the Minister for Equalities, any more than it is true of the Home Secretary or the Attorney General. They are in the vanguard of the battle against this kind of dogmatic, doctrinal cultural Marxism, because they know that politics is palpably about values, not just about dull, mechanistic, economic minutiae. We should celebrate the contribution of everyone to our country, whatever their background, their colour or creed, and of course, in that spirit I welcome Black History Month, but history is very rarely a simple case of black and white, literally or metaphorically. A proper appreciation of history is dependent on understanding that the past is as complex as the present, and that humanity is both flawed and capable of greatness. Let us take the British empire, for example. Though of course it is true that empires begin in the interests of their colonial founders, the crass assumption that all that is subsequently done in their imperial names is exclusively wicked is as stupid as it is simplistic. In the words of the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Trevor Phillips:

“The woke ultras who want to wipe away all symbols of British imperialism don’t speak for families who lived under the Empire”.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will not go back to what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier because I have forgotten his exact words, but does he not accept that there are different perspectives when it comes to the empire and our role in it? Should those different perspectives be discussed in education and should we be told about them, or should we just have the one perspective that we have now?

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, of course I accept that. I am a trained history teacher, so of course I understand that there are differing interpretations of history. The problem I was describing earlier—the hon. Lady clearly bristled when I was doing so—is that there are those who want to sanitise and reinvent history. The truth is that all we are now is a product of all that came before, good, bad and ugly, and we cannot simply wipe away the past. This is not year zero, and to believe otherwise is, frankly, Orwellian.