European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

George Howarth Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Frank Field]

I would also say, to qualify that general statement, that areas that I would love to represent—not my own constituency, but others—voted to remain, against the trend of Labour support, in the referendum.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a case that I do not agree with, but he is doing so with his usual reasonable approach. I think he is probably right that at the moment, most people have not changed their minds. The reasons why they voted to leave are still, as far as they are concerned, unresolved, and they think that those things will be resolved by leaving. Suppose, however, that it emerges in the next 12 months that all the reasons why they voted as they did will not be realised, and that, on top of that, the economic consequences will be disastrous—what then?

[Frank Field]

I have only four small sheets of paper, and it has taken me all this time to get this far. I have an answer for my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Indeed, it seems to me that the Labour side needs educating about where Labour voters are. If my right hon. Friend can contain himself, I will take account of that. I emphasise his wisdom in saying that we do not know where these negotiations will end up. They are fraught, particularly because we are negotiating with a group of people who do not want us to succeed because they fear what will happen in their own countries if we do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

On a point of order, Dame Rosie. Delightful though it is to sit listening to the hon. Gentleman expatiate on all manner of things, I am struggling to discover what this can possibly have to do with new clause 49—or, for that matter, any of the amendments and new clauses linked to it.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. We are also debating clause 1, which is fairly wide-ranging, so the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is in order.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

No. I have already explained that I am conscious that many colleagues wish to join in the debate.

I just hope that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will recognise that, far from this being a denial of democracy as some fear—they seem to think it is some kind of ministerial power grab—this legislation will be the complete opposite. Once it has gone through, no Minister of the Crown, however grand, will be able to use the excuse that they had to do something to satisfy the European Court of Justice or the European Union. They will have to answer to this House of Commons, and if they cannot command a majority for what they wish to do, it will be changed. That is the system that I and many Opposition Members believe in, and that is the system we are seeking to reintroduce into our country, after many years’ absence, by the passage of this legislation.

There are concerns about whether the date of exit should be included in the Bill. I think it is good parliamentary practice to put something of such importance on the face of the Bill, and to allow us extensive debate—as we are having today, and doubtless will have more of before the completion of the passage of the legislation through both Houses—so that the public can see that we have considered it fully and come to a view.

I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and I have a lot of sympathy with what he was trying to do, but I will take the advice of Ministers and support their particular version of the amendment. I will do so for the reasons that were set out very well by the Minister: we need complete certainty, and that requires a precise time of transfer. People need to know which law they are obeying and to which court they are ultimately answerable, minute by minute, as they approach the transfer of power on the day in question, and that is a very important part of the process.

I hope those who have genuine fears that we will not have enough time to negotiate are wrong. I think 16 months is a very long time to allow us to see whether we can reach a really good agreement. Of course, we all hope that we can reach a good agreement. Some of us know that if there is no agreement, it will be fine. We can trade under World Trade Organisation terms and put in place, over the next 16 months, all the things we need to do, on a contingency basis, to make sure that if we just leave without an agreement, things will work.

I appeal to all Members to understand that, although most of them may not want that contingency, it is a possible outcome. We cannot make the EU offer a sensible agreement that is in our mutual interests, so surely this House has a duty to the public to plan intelligently and to scrutinise Ministers as they go about putting in place the necessary devices to ensure that it all works.

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee should relax. She is talented and quite capable of leading her Committee, and I am sure that it can make a valuable contribution. Nobody is stopping her or her Committee scrutinising, asking questions, producing ideas or helping the Government make sure that there is a smooth transition. She and I both believe in parliamentary democracy. She has an important position in this House and I wish her every success in pursuing it, in the national interest, so that Ministers can be held to account.

The task before us should be one that brings Parliament together. We should not still be disputing whether or not we are leaving. We let the British people decide that and then this House voted overwhelmingly to send in our notice. I explained at the time that that would be the decision point—most Members took it relatively willingly, others very willingly—and we now need to make sure that it works in the best interests of the British people.

I urge the House to come together to work on all those details, to make sure that we can have a successful Brexit, even if a really good agreement is not on offer after a suitable time for negotiation; and I urge the European Union to understand that it is greatly in its interests to discuss as soon as possible a future relationship. If it does not do so soon, we will simply have to plan for no agreement, because it is our duty to make sure that everything works very smoothly at the end of March 2019.

[Mr Howarth]

It is, I think, a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who invited the House to come together and sort these problems out. The problem with his invitation, however, was exposed by the rest of his speech, in which he argued that if we do come together, it has to be on his terms. There is no scope for those of us who believe that there is a different way of doing this; we can only do it in the way in which he and those who have agreed with him over many years think it can be done. That is an invitation that I am more than prepared to resist.

I rise to speak in favour of the helpful amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and that tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), to which I am also a signatory.

Before I move on to those amendments, I would like to say a word about the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). He is a good friend of mine: I have known him for many years and have always respected him. He compared this process to that of buying a house. That is a seductive way of looking at it, but he neglected to mention that the process of buying a house includes something called sold subject to contract. Article 50 might represent “sold subject to contract”, but we have yet to see what the contract is. My right hon. Friend’s analogy is perhaps more apposite than he realised, because perhaps we are in such a process but at a completely different stage from that which he suggested.

I will return directly to the argument by the right hon. Member for Wokingham about why the House should come together. Many of us believe that while that might be possible at some point, we are not at that point yet. I have two yardsticks to apply before I decide—if I am given the opportunity, provided by the two amendments I referred to—whether it is the right thing to do.

Everybody has rightly said that the people voted to leave. That is true. They did so by a smallish margin, but they did. In my constituency, they voted in exactly the same way as the national result. There is an obligation on us to recognise, acknowledge and deal with the implications of the referendum vote. What the people did not vote for, however, was an agreement the dimensions of which we do not even understand. That is where we are at the moment.

The first yardstick I will use to judge the question is the points my constituents raised with me on the doorstep. First, they said they would vote to leave because they did not like the amount of immigration. I argued with them, but that was the point they put to me. Secondly, they argued for parliamentary sovereignty. I tried to explore that more fully, but it did not often end up in a productive conversation. Thirdly, they argued for greater economic freedom. Other arguments were made and will no doubt be debated, but they were the three main issues raised with me on the doorstep.

I come back directly to the question put by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. What are we as a House supposed to unite on? At this stage, I do not know whether any of the reasons for my constituents to vote the way they did will be addressed—they certainly will not be addressed by the Bill—by the Government’s final deal. I do not know, the Government do not know, my constituents do not know and the House does not know, yet we are somehow being asked to take it on trust that at some point all will be revealed and there will be nothing to worry about. Forgive me, but I have been in this House for a number of years, in opposition and in government, and I know there is always something to worry about, particularly when the Government do not even know what the end of the process is likely to bring.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Howarth]

I will give way, but only this once because I want to conclude.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

Is the right hon. Gentleman’s implication that unless he is satisfied with an agreement he will not allow us to leave the European Union?

[Mr Howarth]

I will answer precisely that point before I conclude, but if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me I will do so in my own particular way.

The second test to apply is fairly straightforward: are we heading into economic disaster? At this stage, we are unable to say. We do not know what the trade terms will be and we do not know how they will affect businesses and workforces. All of that is to be negotiated. If, at the end of the process, all those questions have been answered to my satisfaction and that of my constituents, I could vote, provided I am given the opportunity, to leave the European Union. At this stage, however, there is such a lack of clarity about where we stand and where we will get to that I am not prepared to give that commitment. I cannot say to my constituents that everything they voted for will not happen, on top of which it will be economically disastrous for us.

I say to the Government: get on with the negotiations, but we want the opportunity to say this is not right for our constituents. I will vote for the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to make sure that we have exactly that opportunity.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I have often taken part in such debates as these and felt rather in the minority in opposing a new European treaty, and I wonder whether I am still in a minority in the House today, as it probably has more remainers than leavers in it, which rather colours the judgment of those taking part in the debate.

Women Released from Prison

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to contribute to the debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I am pleased that we are having the debate, as I have a long-standing interest in the experience of women in the penal system. I thank the many organisations that have supported me both for this debate and over a number of years, including Agenda, the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League for Penal Reform, as well as Women in Prison, and which give us excellent briefings and information.

The title of this debate is about women leaving prison but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), I will first talk about women going into prison. Alarmingly, the number of women in prison exceeded 4,000 for the first time in July 2017. As we know, the experience of women in prison is generally not a good one: 16 women died in custody in 2015-16 and there have been 18 suicides in 2016 and 2017 so far. That is 14 more than in the previous eight years put together. As we heard from my hon. Friend, many women who have a period in custody face losing their home and their children as a result of incarceration. We know that many also suffer mental health difficulties, which time in prison may exacerbate.

An increase in the number of women going into prison troubles me—especially to the extent that it reflects a perverse consequence of the Transforming Rehabilitation programme. I think it is a commonly understood problem that that programme is leading to a rise in the number of women being recalled to prison. The number of women recalled to custody following their release has increased by 68% since the end of 2014, according to analysis by the Prison Reform Trust. The number of those with a sentence of less than 12 months returned to custody after licence recall was 14.6 times higher in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of 2015. The numbers in the first quarter of 2017 were 220 women, compared with just 15 women two years before.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore said, despite the intentions of Transforming Rehabilitation to reduce reoffending, women are increasingly going round and round in a revolving door. We need to do better, both to keep women out of custody and to prevent them from returning to custody following release from a period in prison.

There may be a number of reasons for the high rate of recall, but one that alarms me is that the through-the-gate support that was envisaged to be provided by dedicated case managers in Transforming Rehabilitation is not yet properly in place. Nor are all community rehabilitation companies offering genuinely gender-specific programmes. My first question to the Minister is: will he review how Transforming Rehabilitation is working and the role of community rehabilitation companies in preparing women for and supporting them on release?

I am concerned that the Transforming Rehabilitation model means that the provision that should be in place for women completing custodial sentences is fragmented. The majority of women, most of whom commit less serious crimes, are likely to fall under the auspices of the community rehabilitation companies, with only a small number of women deemed high risk being supervised by the national probation service.

I understand the risk model that underpins Transforming Rehabilitation. I do not entirely agree with the model and am not convinced that it is viable, but I understand what the Government say it should look like. However, the number of women prisoners referred to the national probation service will be so infinitesimally small in the scheme of things that it is difficult to see how gender-sensitive models can be devised by the NPS for this very small group of very vulnerable women.

One suggestion I would like to put to the Minister is that all women leaving custody should be supervised by the CRCs, not the national probation service. Will he investigate that suggestion and make an assessment of the risk implications of doing so? Those risks could be mitigated, or indeed more than balanced out, by improving access to dedicated gender-sensitive support focused in the CRCs and available to all women.

I am sure the Minister will be well aware of the whole-system approach we have been trialling in Greater Manchester, where my constituency is. I very much commend that approach to him. The programme aims to embed integrated gender-responsive support services for women at three points in the criminal justice system—on arrest, sentencing and release from prison. Nine women’s centres in Greater Manchester provide support hubs for women referred via a range of routes. The services they offer are very much appreciated by the women who access them. I visited my own women’s centre and can absolutely vouch for how the women feel about them and the positive experience they have. They welcome the opportunity to be in a women-only safe space.

The 2015 evaluation of the whole-system approach carried out by Sheffield Hallam and Manchester Metropolitan universities found that service users had revealed a strong sense of despair, hopelessness and isolation prior to engaging with the support on offer at the women’s centre. Once they had that engagement, it gave them a sense of purpose and a structure to their day. It gave them aspirations for the future in terms of volunteering and employment opportunities and led to improvements in health and opportunities to re-engage with their children and families. The development of that positive sense of self is really necessary in improving wellbeing and reducing the isolation and lack of confidence that often lead women to offend and take them to a crisis point where criminal behaviour may result.

Particularly notable in the research and the service users’ own accounts was the fact that such intensive and tailored support was not available to them before their engagement with the women’s centres. Providing a more efficient service with less duplication and burden on statutory agencies was also reported to be a perceived benefit of the approach. Women’s centres were said to be places women could turn to and could be linked to other organisations in the community that could help them, which is important, given that the statutory agencies with which women are involved may not be aware of or not have time to make links with one another and offer all sources of support.

I of course acknowledge that the internal alliance between different statutory and voluntary agencies has improved the sharing of good practice and facilitated some of the pathways, but there are concerns. Some have expressed concerns that innovation will be squeezed out as the pathways become more standardised. Not all referral routes appear to be working fully effectively to refer women into the women’s centre provision. As I say, through-the-gate referrals have been particularly disappointing, perhaps because of the lack of dedicated through-the-gate case managers.

Women themselves may not know of or understand the support they could obtain from the women’s centres and be doubtful about it. When I visited Styal Prison recently, women peer mentors in the prison suggested that they should be able to liaise between the prison and women’s centres to encourage women coming up to completion of their custodial sentences to move on to use the women’s centre facilities.

However, the most crucial problem—it will come as no surprise to anybody in the room—is uncertainty about funding. Indeed, that applies to not only the whole-system approach in Greater Manchester, but women’s centres up and down the country.

May I make a suggestion to the Minister? I am not optimistic, but I keep suggesting this in the hope that one day a Minister will agree with me. I suggest, on the 10th anniversary of the seminal Corston report, which suggested that women should serve their sentences in community settings, that rather than money being put into new community prisons, which as far as I can tell are prisons in all but name, that money could be better directed at supporting women’s centres and rehabilitation programmes in the community. More women could be reached. They could be supported to remain at home, to care for their children and to work if they were able to do so. As we know, those are all important factors in reducing reoffending and costs to the public purse. Instead, precarious funding of community provision is exacerbated by cuts to other services, such as mental health services, and to the benefits on which women leaving prison will rely.

Housing is a particular issue. The Prison Reform Trust says that, as we have heard, 60% of women prisoners do not have homes to go to on release. I draw the Minister’s attention particularly to the following problem, which I heard about in Styal. A woman who had served a custodial sentence, who had a history of offending behaviour and addiction and had been treated as having made herself intentionally homeless by her housing authority before going into custody, was not able to point to the successful programme of rehabilitation that she had undertaken in prison in order to have her housing application treated differently on release. Would the Minister, with Department for Communities and Local Government colleagues, look into that?

I am conscious that you want me to move on, Mr Howarth, so I will make just two final points. The first is on universal credit, which we are debating in the main Chamber this afternoon. The prisons tell me that they cannot start a woman’s application for universal credit in advance of her release. That means that women often leave prison with just £47 to their name and a six-week wait. I hope the Minister will talk to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about whether it might be possible to start the application process for universal credit in the prison ahead of the release date.

Finally, I emphasise the importance of family contact, particularly contact with children, which we all know is also a very important factor in helping to reduce offending and reoffending. My final example on that is that on my recent visit to Styal, I met an EU national whose daughter was suffering very severe health problems, having just given birth. The grandmother was deemed low risk by the prison, no longer had her passport and, with a new grandchild, was very unlikely to abscond, yet she could not be granted a family resettlement visit, which would have enabled her to go to her daughter and provide the family with some support.

I hope the Minister will pick up some of the quite detailed but practical points that I have raised, because we all share the common goal of reducing the number of women in custody and helping them to be rehabilitated in the community.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Kate Green]

I apologise, Mr Howarth.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Three further people wish to speak. If they all take longer than the Minister gets to wind up the debate, I will not be able to get them in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I shall call the first Front-Bench speaker at 5.09 pm, in order to give the mover of the motion time for a brief response at the end.

Oral Answers to Questions

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are investing more than £1 billion to transform and modernise our court systems to make sure they put the needs of victims first. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service recently established model victim and witness waiting rooms at Nottingham justice centre, Manchester magistrates court, Newcastle Crown court, Liverpool Crown court and Aldershot justice centre, drawing on feedback from the Victims’ Commissioner, the Witness Service and court users.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that decisions on the support received by police and crime commissioners to work with victims are often made very late in the financial year. Will he consider three-year-long provision, so that services can be provided more efficiently and with greater stability?

[Dr Lee]

There are areas where PCCs are doing very good work and there are areas where the work is perhaps not as successful. I have announced annual awards only because I want to get to grips with the evidence of what works, so that the money can follow that and we can deliver better services for victims.

Attacks on NHS Staff

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 176138 relating to attacks on NHS medical staff.

It is a pleasure to make these introductory remarks under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The petition highlights the rising problem of attacks on NHS staff, an issue with which I am very familiar from my constituency work. Indeed, local GPs recently raised it with me in my surgery in Radlett. I pay tribute to listeners of London’s LBC radio, who backed this petition as part of the Guard our Emergency Medical Services—GEMS—campaign. Their support for the petition helped to push the number of signatures well over 100,000, which the Petitions Committee usually takes as a benchmark for triggering a debate in this place. I also thank the Royal College of Nursing and the many other representative organisations that have contacted me to highlight the scale of the problem. It is clear that the petition has struck a chord with the public and hon. Members.

The raw facts speak for themselves: there were more than 70,000 recorded assaults on NHS staff in England in 2016—an increase from nearly 68,000 in 2015 and 60,000 in 2004. In the NHS trust serving my constituency, there were more than 1,000 recorded assaults last year. A recent RCN members’ survey found that 56% of nurses had experienced physical or verbal abuse from patients, and a further 63% had experienced abuse from relatives of patients or members of the public.

Those statistics tell only one side of the story. Since I agreed to lead this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, I have been inundated with examples of the scale of the problem. I will cite just a few, which were compiled by 38 Degrees. An NHS staff nurse said that in her

“20 year nursing career I have been spat at, punched, kicked, verbally abused…and even had a cardiac monitor thrown at my head!”

Another said that she works

“in an A&E department as a staff nurse. On a daily basis I see some sort of aggression whether this is physical or verbal towards staff. I can’t recall a day that has gone by where we’ve not had to have security or the Police in the department.”

Perhaps more worrying is evidence given to the Petitions Committee by the Royal College of Nursing, which suggests that some female nurses fear that they are seen as “fair game” for sexual assault. I am sure hon. Members find that appalling.

This problem does not just affect NHS staff working in hospitals and GP surgeries. Concerns have been raised about the safety of lone NHS workers—for example, nurses visiting care homes. Such violence against NHS workers is clearly completely unacceptable, and all Members of the House agree that we must not stand for it. This debate is an opportunity to highlight the problem and send a clear signal from this House that it cannot be tolerated. It is also an opportunity to consider measures to tackle it.

The petition calls for higher legal provision and protection to be extended to NHS staff, making it a specific offence to assault them. As the petition makes clear, that protection is already afforded to police officers under section 89 of the Police Act 1996, and my research indicates that it is also a specific offence to assault prison and immigration officers. It is also an offence to assault doctors, nurses and midwives in Scotland. I raised that point with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions, and I know from both the response I received subsequently from her and the Government’s response to the petition that they take this problem seriously.

I understand that the current position is that, first, to ensure that prosecutions are brought forward once a charge has been made, the code for Crown prosecutors makes it clear that a prosecution is more likely if the offence has been committed against someone who was serving the public at the time, which includes NHS workers. Secondly, at the sentencing stage, the fact that an offence was committed against a person working in the public sector is an aggravating factor, which means that it is considered as adding to the seriousness of the offence, thereby meriting a longer sentence within the maximum penalty available. In addition, current sentencing practice indicates that custody is used as a starting point for assaults on public servants.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Although what the hon. Gentleman said about aggravating factors, which are set by the Sentencing Council, is important, the argument for having a specific offence rests on the fact that medical staff often deal with people in stressful and sensitive situations, so they deserve a better level of protection equal to that afforded to police officers.

[Oliver Dowden]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an apposite point, which I was just about to come on to.

I welcome the progress that has been made as a result of the petition. I understand that the Government have committed to updating the protocol on tackling violence in the health system, which will involve the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on that in his concluding remarks. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I urge the Government to keep an open mind about creating a new specific offence.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.

Let us remember that during our consideration of the 2011 Bill, the then Pensions Minister promised to look at transitional arrangements for some of the women affected. Towards the end of the Bill’s passage, the Government made amendments that at least prevented people from having to wait longer than an extra 18 months for their state pension. That certainly helped some women born between January and September 1954, but there was still a whole load of anomalies that were not dealt with. One of the things that has made the situation worse, as has been said, is the lack of notice that women received about the changes.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. May I give her one instance of what she described? Somebody who was born in 1956 was notified in 2006 what her state pension would be at the age of 60. That was the last communication that she had, so in 2010, when she was offered early retirement as a teacher, she took it on the basis of that information, and retired in 2011. She was given absolutely no indication that she would be in this situation, but she has now been told that she will not get her state pension until she is 68.

[Helen Jones]

Absolutely. Many, many women have found themselves in a similar position. They have been given information that has never been corrected and they have relied on that information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Jones]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.

[Mr George Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. Did I just hear the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) correctly in his accusation that some people were behaving dishonestly? Is that a parliamentary expression?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I call Helen Jones to continue her intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

Thank you. I have got the message loud and clear, and I hope that Members will respond accordingly—[Hon. Members: “It’s you!”] I was trying to help colleagues on both sides of the Chamber who are standing up and trying to intervene.

The last point raised by the petition is on the new state pension, the way in which it has been communicated and the implied fairness, or unfairness, of it. It is time that we all recognised that the new state pension has huge benefits for many people, and particularly for women. For the first time in the history of pensions in this country, women who have spent years out of the workplace, either bringing up children or caring for their parents, will receive those years as contributions to national insurance, which will determine what their state pension is. [Interruption.] That is a revolutionary change, whether Members care to recognise it or not, and it is one that we should all support.

Secondly, the changes made to the composition of the state pension, particularly the triple lock, mean that the absolute amount of money received by people on the new state pension this April will already be £1,000 a year more than in 2010. Thirdly, it has been calculated that, in the first 10 years of the new state pension, some 650,000 women will receive £416 a year more than they would have received without the new state pension.

[Mr George Howarth]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. As the hon. Gentleman moves into the 22nd minute of his speech, will he give us an indication of its likely future proportions, so that we can pace ourselves?

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Again, that is not a point of order, but the point is made.

Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service

George Howarth Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point, because of course someone might say that five is a small number—of course, every life matters—but when we see a trend such as that one it is significant. We also have to consider the wider trauma that is suffered, because of course one person who dies in a fire may have many relatives and children, and so the trauma is not just restricted to that one person. This is a very serious situation.

In addition to the increased risks to the public that we are seeing, we must also bear in mind what these cuts mean to the fire crews themselves. When a firefighter is committed to an incident wearing breathing apparatus, the length of time that they spend dealing with that incident and the activity that they undertake will have a bearing on the length of time they will need to recover away from the area of danger before they can be recommitted. Each time a firefighter wears breathing apparatus at an incident, the potential risk that they face increases, because of the amount of time they are exposed to hazards and the physical efforts of repeated use of breathing apparatus.

The speed at which other fire appliances arrive to provide additional crew in breathing apparatus is crucial to reducing the risk to firefighters and to providing an effective firefighting response. Dan Stephens, the chief fire officer of Merseyside fire and rescue service, has given his view of the impacts of the cuts so far. He says, “The reduction of appliance numbers resulting from the cuts to the Merseyside fire and rescue authority budget have increased response times for the first and subsequent appliances to life-risk incidents. The reduction in appliances has also impacted on the number of crews that can be released for risk-critical training and exercises on any given shift. The organisational capacity to undertake community safety interventions such as home fire safety checks has also been significantly reduced.” It is important that we take notice of the chief fire officer’s analysis of the situation that the cuts have given rise to.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend both for her good fortune in securing this debate and for the powerful way in which she is making her case. Does she agree that given the weight of the problem that she has described, it would be appropriate for the Government to treat the fire and rescue service in the same way that they have treated the police, which is to say there should be no further cuts to the fire and rescue service?

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent point, and I absolutely agree with it.

As though all that has happened from 2011-12 to 2015-16 was not enough, there are more cuts to come. The future funding settlement announced as part of the local government funding settlement at the end of last year—on 17 December—has left Merseyside fire and rescue service facing a 41.3% cash reduction in the revenue support grant, which is the grant from central Government, over the period from 2016-17 to 2019-20. That equates to approximately a 50% reduction in real terms. Once business rates are added, Merseyside fire and rescue service will see a cut in cash terms of 16%, or between 22% and 25% in real terms if we take inflation into account. Of course, we have to remember that that those cuts are on top of the cuts that the service has already suffered, meaning total cuts of £11 million over the four years. The cuts that are coming our way are likely to lead to the loss of another 10 fire engines, taking the number down from 28 to 18, and the loss of another four or more fire stations.

The overall impact of the cuts delivered and planned for by the coalition Government and the current Government, between April 2011 and March 2020, will be a 41% reduction in the number of firefighters—a loss of about 400—a 46% reduction in the number of support, fire prevention and management staff, to just under 200, and a 21% cut in control staff, bringing their number down from 42 to 33. We can also expect to see the number of fire engines reduced from 42 to 18—a 43% cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s excellent point.

We have already mentioned the increased response times that are so critical when it comes to saving life. Independent consultants Greenstreet Berman suggest that by 2020, should the cuts go ahead, slower response times nationally will mean up to 41 additional deaths at dwelling fires, up to 91 additional deaths at road traffic collisions, up to 57 additional deaths at water incidents and 212 additional deaths at special service incidents. A significant increase in loss of life is predicted, so we must consider too what cuts in staffing on that scale will mean for those left working in the service. Anyone working in an environment that involves teamwork knows full well that the loss of 40% of staff would put pressure on those remaining.

As well as considering the impact on the service’s ability to respond to fires, we must also bear in mind the other essential work that the fire service carries out. In 2015, the Government published the latest edition of the national risk register of civil emergencies, which is the unclassified version of the national risk assessment. The register covers a range of civil emergencies that threaten serious damage to our welfare, the environment and security. A striking number of those threats are matters dealt with by the fire and rescue service, for example terrorist attacks, coastal and inland flooding, storms and gales, low temperatures and heavy snow, heatwaves and severe wild fires, pandemic influenza and other disease outbreaks, major industrial and transport accidents, and public disorder, such as during the civil disturbances of 2011. We must remember that a Government’s first duty is to protect its citizens, and the coalition failed in that duty in 2011, with the riots that took place in London. I happened to be in London at the time, and it was very frightening to be there.

Firefighters in Merseyside continually plan, prepare and train for those kinds of emergencies. Some of the risks posed by such events have increased in recent years, and with climate change many of the risks are likely to increase in the foreseeable future. The Government’s own analysis of flooding incidents responded to by fire and rescue services across England in 2014-15 shows a 15% decrease in the number of such incidents, but I think that we would all agree that this winter we have seen just how important fire and rescue services are in flood incidents, and we have all powerfully been made aware of how unpredictable extreme weather events can be. Merseyside fire and rescue service has supported every major flood event over the past 10 years.

We have to remember too the risk of terrorism. Terrorist incidents are, of course, by their nature unpredictable, but Merseyside fire and rescue must be able to respond to them. For example, it provided a terrorist firearms attack team for the NATO summit in Cardiff.

Other events are highly uncertain and difficult to quantify, and it is impossible to plan for multiple events. Everyone assumes that the fire and rescue service is prepared, equipped and staffed to meet every challenge. The Government’s planning for such risks assumes that sufficient firefighters are available to tackle the emergencies, and that the fire and rescue service in Merseyside is resilient in the face of such threats.

I want to talk a little about the drop in the number of fire incidents. Some have tried to argue that the drop justifies the reduced spending on fire and rescue services. That might have once been the case, but after receiving deep cuts in 2011, Merseyside fire and rescue service should not face any more. The latest round of cuts will adversely affect the service’s ability to carry out crucial fire prevention work in the community, which is particularly important when one considers the age profile of the local population, as in my constituency, for example. Older people suffering from memory loss, mobility issues, sight and hearing loss, and dementia increase the risk of domestic fires. The prevention work carried out by Merseyside fire and rescue service is as important today as it has ever been.

The increase in the number of road traffic incidents, to which the fire service across England has had to respond, should also be borne in mind. The coalition’s cuts to Merseyside fire and rescue service have damaged the service’s ability to respond to fire and a range of other incidents, many of them life-threatening. The cuts announced before Christmas will make matters far worse. The loss of 41% of firefighters, 46% of support, prevention, protection and management staff, and 21% of control staff will put an inacceptable strain on the remaining staff and affect response times. Cuts on that scale could also lead to loss of life.

I have looked but have been unable to find mention in the Conservative party manifesto that the Government intended to make dramatic cuts to essential life-saving services. I welcome a correction from the Minister if I am wrong. I very much doubt that the public will support this level of cuts or that they would be forgiving of such detriment to the service over time.

[Mr George Howarth]

My hon. Friend will be aware that Dan Stephens, the chief fire officer, said today that he believes that there is no capacity to absorb any further cuts. He also said that the situation is exacerbated by our low tax base and that

“the cuts we have sustained to date”

mean that the

“bulk of future savings”

will have

“to come from response”.

Is that not the case in a nutshell? My hon. Friend has described all the consequences—that more people will be at risk, more firefighters will be at risk, more people will lose their lives, more people will be injured and more properties will be destroyed or badly damaged.

[Margaret Greenwood]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Increasing response times is not an option if we take risk management seriously.

In the spending review, on 25 November, the Chancellor made great play of the fact that there would be no cuts in the police budget and that there would be real-terms protection for police funding. He said:

“The police protect us, and we are going to protect the police.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 1373.]

On closer inspection, the pledge does not look quite as watertight as it did when it was first made, but the U-turn does prompt the question: why are the Government not going to protect firefighters? Moving the responsibility for the fire service from the Department for Communities and Local Government to the Home Office offers the Minister an opportunity to pause, reconsider and drop the cuts, and I urge him to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I will make a tiny bit of progress and then give way.

I am very conscious that a former Minister and a former chair of the Merseyside fire and rescue service are present. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), because he went through an enormously difficult time in reforming the Merseyside service. I know that that was not an easy thing for him to do, so I pay tribute to him for the work that he and his board did.

For a short period, I was a fireman in the fire and rescue service in Essex, and I was the branch representative of the Fire Brigades Union for a very short period—until we fell out—and so no one is more conscious than I am of the work that our firefighters do on a daily basis. A lot of it is not seen by the public, even though the public expect them to do it. I am very conscious, having been to Lancashire, of the work that is done through mutual aid agreements. I saw help come across those borders—there were no borders and no lines on maps; firefighters just went across to help in the way that they should have. Firefighters from my constituency in Hertfordshire were also in the north-west, assisting with high-velocity pumps. A lot needs to be learnt from the type of flooding and rescue work that was done. The Prime Minister has already announced a review of not only how we protect the public better from flooding, but how we respond and where the facilities should be.

It is also important that we acknowledge the changes that have taken place in the structure of the fire service, certainly since I joined in ’82, as well as what has happened over the past few years. I pay tribute to the Fire Brigades Union, which in my time, would never have agreed to some of the changes that have taken place, especially in the manning of stations. However, practicalities relating to the modernisation of the service meant that when I was in Lancashire only the other day, all the whole-time station staff I met were what I would call day-manning staff. Other crews come down at night and are on call. It seems to be working really well there. It was first piloted, I think, in Woodham Ferrers in Essex, back in the ’80s. When I was there, we went to day-manning stations. It is about a different sort of facility, looking at what the requirements are and when staff can come in.

[Mr George Howarth]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I give way to the former Minister.

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to the Minister. I join him in paying tribute to the FBU for the concessions that it has been willing to make, but does he not recognise that, because it has already made those concessions, the scope for any further reductions is inevitably much smaller?

[Mike Penning]

In some respects, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have come some way, but I do not think that anyone would say that we have fully come through. For instance, the figure I have for the number of retained firefighters in Merseyside is 25, which is very low. That may be because we are looking at day-manning stations among other things, but the use of retained firefighters is how it is done in many parts of the country. Sadly, that is not the case in London, where there are no retained firefighters, which I find strange. We need to continue to look at that.

I do not have the full figures for Manchester, because the debate is about Merseyside fire and rescue service, so I will have to write to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). My officials were scurrying away behind me to ensure that I had some details, but it is probably better if I write to her. I will say again that I do not recognise some of the figures on the amount of losses. We can all throw figures around, but let us get down to the facts.

Colleagues have talked about the small but significant increase in deaths in Merseyside, and that needs to be addressed. The statistics are always difficult: one death is too many, and one of the first things I said when I took over this responsibility just over three weeks ago was, “Yes, we have reduced deaths nationally enormously, but hundreds of people still die in fires and we need to get that figure down even more.” With the fire service in Merseyside and my specialist teams, I will personally look and ask for analysis as to why that figure has moved.

A couple of comments are very important. I am brand-new into the job. I was a firefighter, but that was a long time ago and the service has changed enormously since then. The one thing that has not changed is that, while we go in one direction, the fire service and other emergency services are going in the other direction, so it is right that we continue to pay tribute to fire services across the country and acknowledge the work that they do and that there have been many changes. In the debate, I was listening carefully about who is manning what and where.

Some colleagues said that their fire station may not open—I refer in particular to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). It might well open if it were a fire and police station. It is difficult to convert a police station into a fire station because the big red trucks do not get into the foyer so well, but we can plan constructively in the community. I always use the analogy that a church is not about buildings; it is about people coming together, and that is what we are talking about with the emergency services.

The reforms we announced today based on the consultation are not top-down but an attempt to move further forward. As chief fire officer Paul Hancock said today, there is a general warmth towards them in the service. This is not about taking one force, putting it under another and undermining it—as a former firefighter, why would I do that? I am trying to ensure that those on the front line have the opportunities and finances there and that we do not waste money in silos with headquarters here and there when they could come together. Why is it that in any part of the country the fire and police headquarters are not in the same building? Why are human resources and procurement not done together?

Since I took over responsibility for the fire service, I have published information on the 43 police authorities in which I listed about 20 average products that they buy for front-line operational use, so that the public can see how much each PCC and chief constable is spending on that equipment. The variation is enormous. For instance, on a type of approved body armour, there was a £300 difference between one piece of kit and another. On batons, the figure was about £80. I intend to do similarly for the fire service. I am not telling anyone that they should go to a specific organisation to buy their equipment, but I think the public should know what is being spent and how it is being spent. In vehicle procurement, the fire service should be part of the e-auctions process to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent correctly.

State Pension Age (Women)

George Howarth Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) first on securing this important debate, and secondly on the forceful way in which she put the case. She was strongly backed up by the speech of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).

I just want to make two points by way of introduction. The first is to also congratulate Women Against State Pension Inequality—WASPI—on the powerful way it has put this case and conducted its campaign. Secondly, I want to say there is a basic unfairness in this problem that does need to be addressed. Into the bargain, there is a broken promise—or a broken contract, as I think the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South described it—between the state and the women who are affected.

I received a very well put-together letter from a constituent. I will not name her as she marked it “Private and Confidential” and I think there is a message in that for me. Nevertheless, I thought it would be as well to use her words as much as possible, because this is someone who has been directly affected. The points she makes have already been reflected in the two speeches so far, but I think they bear repetition in her own words. The first point she makes is that she was given

“Inadequate notice and communication regarding the age change—I received less than 4 years instead of the recommended 10-15 yrs. This has had disastrous consequences on the important financial and life changing decisions I made in anticipation of my retirement at 60 and receipt of state pension.”

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I am sure my right hon. Friend has, like me, had a number of women make representations to him. I met some women on Monday for whom this has changed their life for the worse. I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that this is discriminatory against women.

[Mr Howarth]

I was going to come on to that very point.

The second point my constituent makes is that she was

“Hit by 2 pension age increases first to 65 and rapidly in succession to 66 resulting in the loss of over £35,000”.

The final point she made that I want to highlight is that she is

“No longer eligible to receive the old state pension into which I paid full contributions for over 40 years. I will not receive a full new state pension due to the shortfall of contributions between the ages of 60-66. A factor in my decision to retire at 60 was that I had paid in excess of the 39 years contributions that were required for a full state pension at that time.”

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

This is a crucial debate not least for my constituents Jackie Williams and Debbie Watkins who are active in the WASPI campaign. My right hon. Friend might be pleased to know that the Minister responsible for this issue says the reason she cannot carry out the terms of this motion is that it would be impossible. He and the House might care to know that, as Ros Altmann, she was a very effective advocate on pensions issues when I was the Work and Pensions Secretary, and when we were arguing that the pension protection fund we had introduced should not be applied retrospectively, as she wished, I said it was impossible. Ros said to me, “That word doesn’t—”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order, Mr Johnson; come on, you are in the next debate as well. In the interests of fairness, we have a very tight time limit and must have short interventions so nobody drops off the list—and I know you would not want to do that to anybody.

[Mr Howarth]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend brings a wealth of experience and understanding of this subject to the contribution he has just made and I am very grateful for it, lengthy though it may have been.

If I can continue with the quote I was midway through from my constituent, she goes on to say:

“This requirement has now been reduced to 30 years. To be faced with an overpayment in the old pension requirements of 10 years contributions which I am no longer eligible for and to have a shortfall of 6 years in the new pension requirements is beyond belief.”

I want to conclude by quoting my constituent again. Her comments illustrate why the WASPI campaign is so reasonable. She says:

“I understand that the equalisation of state pensions had to be addressed but I object to the unfair way that this was handled creating more issues of inequality in the process. Future generations will be given 10 years notice on age changes whereas I and many like me were not. I am requesting that transitional protection/arrangements be provided for the 1950s women affected by these changes.”

Of course all Governments have to consider the financial situation, make proper arrangements and understand the economic difficulties that they face, but this is a basic question of inequality and unfairness.

[Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Howarth]

I cannot give way again.

This matter has to be addressed, and I hope that the Minister will understand the strength of feeling that exists not only among those out there who are affected but in this House. We feel that this is an injustice, and all injustices have to be put right, as this one should be.

The Shrewsbury 24

George Howarth Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. He makes the valid point that members of the public outside watching this debate will be very confused that promises about the release of information keep getting made but are not kept. That is why many of them do not trust parliamentarians and Parliament. The hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.

In making his powerful address, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton got to the nub of the issue for those involved in the campaign. The eldest of these men is 90, and the youngest is 68. They should not have to wait five years for the release of these documents.

The SNP supports the decision taken in the House in January 2014. I want to emphasise the result of the vote: there were 120 votes in favour of releasing the documents, and three against. Many of us are concerned that national security is being used as a reason not to release the documents. Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, has said:

“It is time to end this 40-year conspiracy of silence and release all the government documents relating to the Shrewsbury 24. There is something deeply wrong in this country when a 21st century government uses national security to withhold documents about ordinary working people who tried to improve their working conditions four decades ago. We believe the Tories are desperately trying to hide the stench of a great miscarriage of justice and we urge fair minded MPs to back our campaign to release all the government papers on the Shrewsbury 24.”

Alex Deane, a Conservative public affairs consultant, wrote on the ConservativeHome website in January 2014,

“whilst deeply unsympathetic to their cause, I find it simply impossible to conjure up what the national security concerned might be in hiding the decisions taken by officials and elected persons relating to the prosecution of builders in Shropshire 40 years ago. What technique of surveillance or undercover work might possibly justify non-disclosure after this passage of time? Any technique will be outdated or universally known about. Any individual involved in undercover work can have his or her name redacted from the papers which might otherwise be released. Consideration of the wider disclosures rightly made in recent times of papers relating to Northern Ireland, where on any view those concerned were more dangerous, makes a mockery of any such claim to national security concerns.”

We believe a great injustice has been done, and hope that the Minister will confirm today that he will release the papers relating to the Shrewsbury 24.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. I am about to call the shadow Home Secretary. Although I think there will be plenty of time for both Front-Bench spokesmen, I ask them to bear in mind the fact that Steve Rotheram has the right to a few minutes at the very end. I hope that they will make sure that he gets them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have been here at the start of the debate to hear the whole case. He has just revealed that it was a political campaign against the trade unions. That is what he just said, and that is the point. He has revealed his hand to this entire gathering. It was a political campaign that Mrs Thatcher sorted out. That is the point here. There was a campaign driven from the top of Government, as I have revealed. We do not live in a country where politicians can put people on trial. I do not want to live in a country like that. These should be independent matters for the police and the legal authorities. The hon. Gentleman has heard evidence today of politicians putting people on trial; if he is not concerned about that, well, I am, and that is why we are holding this debate.

The next document that I have shows that due process was not followed in the aftermath of the political pressure. On 17 September 1973, a conference between police investigating the case and the chief Crown prosecutor, Mr Drake, was held at Mr Drake’s home. I have here a note of that conference. Let me quote the key passage in paragraph 16, which records an explanation from police officers about the gathering of statements:

“So that Counsel would be aware it was mentioned that not all original hand-written statements were still in existence, some having been destroyed after a fresh statement had been obtained. In most cases the first statement was taken before photographs were available for witnesses and before the Officers taking the statements knew what we were trying to prove.”

Let me read that again for the benefit of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), so that he can hear it without any confusion. [Interruption.]

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the shadow Home Secretary does that, I should say that I understand that emotions are running high for those observing this case, particularly in the light of some of the things that have been said. However, the debate should be heard in silence.

[Andy Burnham]

Let me read from the note quietly and carefully so that no one is under any doubt. It says: “before the Officers”—the police officers—

“taking the statements knew what we were trying to prove.”

I put it to the House that that document, which has not been made public before, is the smoking gun in the Shrewsbury case. It is clear that the police felt it incumbent on them to investigate propelled by a prosecutorial narrative, rather than by an even-handed investigation of events. I was led to believe that the Conservative party believed in the Peelian principles of policing, but they were not followed in this case. Transcripts of the trial reveal that the court and the jury were never informed of the destruction of those original witness statements. That fact alone raises major questions about the conduct of the trial and the safety of the convictions.

I turn to the trial itself and the Government attempts to influence it. “Red Under the Bed” was a television programme made by Woodrow Wyatt for Anglia Television. Its aim was to reveal communist infiltration of the trade unions and the Labour party, but it was also clearly intended to influence the trial. Wyatt’s controversial commentary was interspersed with footage of John Carpenter and Des Warren and pictures of Shrewsbury Crown court. The programme was first broadcast across ITV regions on 13 November 1973, the day the prosecution closed its case. We know that the judge watched a video of the programme in his room just after it was broadcast. It is inconceivable that the programme did not influence the trial, and unthinkable in this day and age that a television programme prejudicial to a major trial could have been aired during that trial. But it was.

I will now reveal the full back story about how the programme was made. I have here a memo, headed “SECRET”, to a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office official from the head of the Information Research Department, a covert propaganda unit operating within the FCO. It says:

“Mr. Woodrow Wyatt’s television programme, ‘Red under the Bed’, was shown nationally on commercial television on Tuesday, 13 November, at 10.30 p.m…We had a discreet but considerable hand in this programme…In February Mr. Wyatt approached us direct for help. We consulted the Department of Employment and the Security Service through Mr. Conrad Heron’s group…With their agreement, Mr. Wyatt was given a large dossier of our own background material. It is clear from internal evidence in the programme that he drew extensively on this”.

What an extraordinary thing for a Government official to be writing in a memo to a senior civil servant!

It gets worse. In the next paragraph, the head of the unit says this:

“In our estimation this was a hard-hitting, interesting and effective exposure of Communist and Trotskyist techniques of industrial subversion. But Mr. Wyatt’s concluding message, that the CPBG’s”—

the Communist Party of Great Britain’s—

“main aim is to take over the Labour Party by fair means or foul—an opinion which is almost incontrovertible—offended the Independent Broadcasting Authority’s standards of objectivity, as they interpret the Statute…This difference of opinion held up the showing of the film”.

This is senior civil servants talking about the infiltration of the Labour party—a spurious claim that they were trying to make through a television programme that they were directly involved in making. It is astonishing that it came to that.

Knowledge of what was going on went right to the very top. The Prime Minister’s Principal Private Secretary put in a handwritten note to Mr Heath. It says:

“Prime Minister…You may like to glance through this transcript of Woodrow Wyatt’s ‘Red Under The Bed’ TV programme.”

The reply came back from the Prime Minister:

“We want as much as possible of this”.

On the back of that, the PPS wrote a further confidential memo to Sir John Hunt, the Cabinet Secretary. It says:

“The Prime Minister has seen the transcript of Woodrow Wyatt’s television programme…He has commented that we want as much as possible of this sort of thing. He hopes that the new Unit is now in being and actively producing.”

The “new Unit”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. As far as I am aware, there are no criminal or appeal proceedings pending; in which case, no sub judice rule applies to this debate. It is a matter for debate. I want the Minister to understand that.

[Mike Penning]

I apologise if I inadvertently indicated that there was anything sub judice. Clearly there is not. The CCRC is there, before we get back into the courts, to independently look at what was going on.

Before I answer the question that the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked me, let me say that 1972 is a long time ago. There have been many Governments, of two different persuasions, in power during that time.

Cannabis

George Howarth Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. We look at the United States with incredulity because it does not accept the evidence on gun possession. We can all see the evidence; it has been shown over and over again that the more guns there are in society, the more deaths and murders take place. However, the United States will not accept that. We are in a similar state of denial on cannabis. Many places in the world now recognise that prohibition has been a continuing disaster—a disaster more serious than the prohibition of alcohol in the United States—yet we refuse to recognise the fact.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he accept that his analogy with gun control in America proves exactly the opposite point? The problem with guns in America is that there are too many of them and they are too easy to get, so I am not sure the analogy supports his argument in the way he used it.

[Paul Flynn]

The analogy is with the fact that we deny evidence. We do not look at evidence. As I illustrated, the evidence is that controlling drugs in prison has failed. The Government went to the idiotic palaver of requiring three questions to be asked before they admitted that there is not a prison in Britain free of illegal drug use. The point is about that defensive attitude and the denial of information.

I believe the word is spreading throughout the planet now. In the United States, which was the worst of the lot and the most in denial, four states are now selling cannabis recreationally. Has the sky fallen? Has it been a disaster? It has been a great success. In 2000, we saw politicians of great courage in Portugal introduce a depenalisation scheme. It was unpopular with other politicians, the press and the public, but they went ahead and it has turned out to be a brilliant success in every way. They cut down the number of deaths within five years. They have invested more money in health systems and support systems, and the scheme was widely praised by our own Health Committee when it went to Portugal. It also went to Colombia, and its report in 2012 asked for an investigation into drugs. It based its conclusions, after a year of investigations, on the success of Portugal, but do we talk about that? Are we going to follow suit? We do not have to take the courageous step now; Portugal has done it for us. It has done the work, which has been hugely beneficial.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lilley]

Yes, I think the hon. Gentleman puts the issue in perspective with that remark. There is evidence that cannabis may precipitate psychosis in those prone to it anyway, and they should certainly be discouraged from using it, as I would discourage everyone from using it, but it is better that it be available and regulated than illegally supplied but readily available in any case, and with a high level of usage in this country.

Another argument that people invoke is, “Cannabis nowadays is different from what it was in your youth, Mr Lilley.” Since I did not take it in my youth, that does not make a great deal of difference, but people say that it is now available in much stronger and more potent forms. Of course, that is partly a symptom of illegality. In the same way, during prohibition people moved from beer to spirits, because the more concentrated alcohol was, the easier it was to transport and supply, while escaping the authorities.

[Mr George Howarth]

The argument of the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) is that cannabis, whether for medical purposes or general recreational use, should be decriminalised. However, does he accept—as, I believe, my hon. Friend does—that he might make more progress if he concentrated for the time being on whether a product could be developed with the right efficacy to justify it in medical terms, rather than focusing on general decriminalisation, which I believe is more problematic?

[Mr Lilley]

I certainly agree that the medical arguments are overwhelming. I cannot think of any good reasons for not allowing the use of cannabis and its derivatives for medical purposes, although there clearly are arguments, which I do not find compelling, for prohibiting it generally.

The more I examine the arguments for prohibition, the clearer it is to me that although the pretence is that it is for health reasons, the actual reason is moral disapprobation of drugs. I am probably one of the few people in this room who is prepared to say that I share that moral disapprobation. Of course, the greatest sin that one can commit in this country is to take a moral view on anything; that is the supreme immorality. I do think that it is wrong, however, to get stoned out of one’s mind on anything. It is degrading. God gave us minds to see things clearly, not to befuddle and bemuse. There are greater moral arguments, the traditional one being that it undermines one’s self-control and leads to other, more serious wrongdoing. For all those reasons, I am against using it and I would discourage people from using it.

Those who are motivated by moral disapproval of the abuse of drugs make two mistakes. First, they confuse use and abuse. Occasionally to have a relaxing spliff is one thing. I have never done so, and I would not advocate it, but I occasionally go home and drink a glass of wine to relax after a hard day of looking at 38 Degrees petitions, and I do not see any great difficulty in that. I would, however, discourage people from abusing either alcohol or cannabis.

Secondly, those who are motivated by moral disapproval jump to the conclusion that because something is morally wrong, it should be against the law. Lots of things are morally wrong that are not against the law. Adultery is wrong; one should not betray one’s spouse, but we should not put people in jail if they do. We have to get used to the idea that in a free country, people will have to make many moral decisions themselves without being told by the law what to do. We would be a healthier and better country if we gave people that moral responsibility, without saying that it is something that we approve of. It is a choice that people should make, and those of us who disapprove of certain decisions should make the moral arguments against them, rather than dressing them up as, or hiding behind, largely spurious and bogus health concerns, which are at best greatly exaggerated, and at worst non-existent.

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

George Howarth Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Rob Marris]

No, I said I could not take any more interventions.

Let me quote from a report by Barbara Coombs Lee, published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, entitled “Oregon’s experience with aid in dying: findings from the death with dignity laboratory”. Barbara Coombs Lee declared no conflict of interest when she submitted that paper, although I have to tell Members that she is involved with Compassion & Choices in Denver Colorado. The paper was published in July 2014. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, in light of the need for evidence, that you will show me some latitude in quoting not at considerable length, but at a little more length than is usual. She says:

“The data set from a variety of sources confirms that those who complete an aid-in-dying request are equally divided between genders and mostly white, well educated, insured”—

this is the United States—

“and receiving hospice services. Several commentators who articulated concerns about the DWDA—

the Dying with Dignity Act or the Oregon Act—

“have publicly stated that their fears about abuse of the vulnerable have not materialized. One commented, ‘I was worried about people being pressured to do this. But these data confirm that the policy in Oregon is working. There is no evidence of abuse or coercion or misuse of the policy.”

Ten years after that Act had been in operation in Oregon, the University of Utah examined its operation and the data arising from it. I quote from it prudently again. The university

“found no evidence of heightened risk for the elderly, women, the uninsured, people with little education, the poor, the physically disabled or chronically ill, minors, people with psychiatric illnesses or racial or ethnic minorities. The only group disproportionately represented among aid-in-dying patients was people with AIDS.”

It continued:

“The executive director of the disability advocacy group, Disability Rights Oregon testified before the American Public Health Association in 2007 that he had no knowledge of any cases in Oregon to contradict the findings of that report.”

[Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says from a sedentary position, “So it is about disabled people.” No, it is not about people with disabilities. However, I understand, and so did the author of this report, that there are concerns and that is why that evidence has been looked at, and I seek, as did the author of that report, to allay those concerns.

Lord George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has said:

“There is nothing sacred about suffering, nothing holy about agony, and individuals should not be obliged to endure it.”

I agree with him.

When we talk about choice, some hon. Members need reminding of section 1(4) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, for which many Members present today, including me, voted. That subsection states:

“A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision.”

We need to bear in mind that different people faced with the same set of circumstances on occasions make different choices, and at the moment the law in England and Wales has not got the balance right between protection and choice. My Bill would provide more protection, particularly for the living, and more choice. Most of those who would fulfil the criteria in the Bill will, for faith or other reasons, never choose an assisted death. I do not know whether I would, if I had a terminal illness and a prognosis of less than six months, but I and many others would find it comforting to know that the choice was available—to have the option of choosing a dignified and peaceful end at a time and place and in a manner of my own choosing at my own hand.

There has been a trend in our society, which I support, that if the exercise of a choice does not harm others, in a free society we should allow that choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Spelman]

My right hon. Friend demonstrates one of the dilemmas that the Bill presents.

The National Council for Palliative Care has said:

“We believe the current Assisted Dying Bill puts vulnerable people at risk, without improving access to care”.

The heart of the issue of assisted dying goes deeper still, however—to society’s attitudes to ageing, to death and to dying. Why do so many people say, “I don’t want to be a burden”? In societies that revere the elderly, there is less fear among old people that they impose a strain on everyone else. One of my constituents put it like this:

“We are born into dependency, we rely on the goodwill of others even when we are in our prime, and dependency is a necessary feature of our senior years.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury has said that this Bill would lead Britain to cross

“a fundamental legal and ethical Rubicon”.

Respect for life underpins our criminal and human rights laws, as well as the Hippocratic oath, taken by all our doctors, to promote life. The Bill challenges that respect for life. It would result in a major shift in these principles, fundamentally changing the relationship between a doctor and their patient. It would not just legitimise suicide, but promote the participation of others in it. Even if we consider assisted dying to be acceptable in some circumstances, the law should not be changed.

[Mr George Howarth]

The right hon. Lady talked about people feeling that they did not want to be a burden, as though that was not a rational choice to make. In some circumstances, however, it can be perfectly rational for someone to say, “I do not want to be a burden on my family or on the health service, and this is probably the end of my life.”

[Mrs Spelman]

Let me put a rational question back to the right hon. Gentleman. How is it that senior members of our society have reached a point at which they feel they might be a burden? The increasing secularisation of society has contributed to this, because the Christian principle of honouring our fathers and mothers must have become weakened if our parents and grandparents are starting to feel that they are a burden to us.