UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Speech on the Testing of NHS and Social Care Staff

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Labour MP for Leicester South, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That this House expresses thanks to the heroic work of frontline NHS staff who have saved lives throughout the Covid-19 pandemic; pays tribute to the at least 312 NHS and Social Care staff who have died of coronavirus in the United Kingdom; recognises the impact that coronavirus will have upon the NHS to deliver routine care including mental health care without additional Government support; notes that NHS waiting lists are projected to reach 10 million by the end of 2020, that cancer referrals fell 60 per cent during the peak of the coronavirus lockdown and that four out of five children have reported their mental health has got worse during the pandemic; further notes that there is a backlog of NHS care that needs to be tackled and that it is vital to prepare NHS services to deliver safe care alongside care for coronavirus, including preparing for winter and ensuring necessary supplies of PPE and medicine; is concerned that routine testing of NHS and Social Care staff is not currently in place; and calls on the Government to implement a routine weekly testing programme for all NHS and Social Care staff to enable NHS services to safely resume and ensure the continuity of services throughout the winter alongside a functional, national, public test, trace and isolate system.

    We have brought this motion to the House today to provide an opportunity for the House to reflect on the Government’s response in handling the pandemic, to thank our brave, hard-working NHS and social care staff for their extraordinary efforts—including, if I may say so, our student nurses who do a tremendous job on the frontline; I hope the Minister praises them and recognises their worth when she gets up to make her remarks—and to pay tribute to and remember over 300 health and social care staff who gave their lives during the pandemic. We have also tabled the motion to put to the Government a constructive, practical suggestion that we now consider necessary to prepare our national health service to meet the monumental growing burden of unmet clinical need and set out what we think is necessary to prepare us in case of a second wave of the virus.

    The key to resetting the NHS and the safe easing of lockdown measures announced yesterday is a fully effective system that finds cases, tests cases, traces contacts, isolates, and then properly financially supports those who have been asked to isolate. We believe a key element of that must now be the regular testing, weekly if necessary, of all NHS and social care staff. This is what we are suggesting to the Government today, and we hope they will accept our constructive suggestion and find a way to make it work.

    Throughout the pandemic, our concern as an Opposition has been to save lives and minimise harm. We have always thought that that means suppressing the virus, not simply managing its spread, and measures to crunch the virus down, as nations like New Zealand and Iceland have done, and not merely squashing the sombrero. It is why we on the Labour Benches called for a lockdown. Indeed, when I called for a lockdown in March not everybody in my party supported me at the time—many on our side were concerned about the extraordinary restrictions to civil liberties—but we supported the ​Government when they announced a lockdown and we co-operated with the Government in ensuring that the necessary legislation passed this House.

    I also said, however, that a lockdown was a blunt tool. I said it would buy us time while transmission in the community reduced. We always recognised that we could not stay in lockdown forever. Lockdown has huge social repercussions, especially for children. This is not a debate about schools, but I was struck by the words of UNICEF, which warned:

    “Children are not the face of this pandemic. But they risk being among its biggest victims.”

    We have always understood that there would come a moment when we need to ease out of lockdown, but it has to be done safely.

    Of course, nothing is risk-free. We can never entirely eradicate risk, as the chief scientific adviser reminded us yesterday. We cannot be complacent. This virus exploits ambivalence, and the reality is that there are many hundreds of infections every day. Globally, we have passed 9 million cases. The virus is accelerating across the world. There are outbreaks in South Korea and Germany, countries that have been far more successful than we have. The chief medical officer yesterday warned us to expect to continue to be in this situation way through the winter and way into next spring. We all know from our history books that about 100 years ago there was a deadly second wave of Spanish flu. A second wave must surely be a possibility with this virus.

    We are tracking towards one of the worst death tallies in the world: over 65,000 excess deaths, with 26,000 excess deaths in care homes. Ministers cannot run away from the realities, no matter how uncomfortable they are. Today, we call on Ministers to outline a plan for the next stage and to prepare us in case of a deadly second wave. Let me deal with the points in the motion about the NHS.

    Ministers boast that the NHS was not overwhelmed, that it coped and that 119,000 people were admitted to hospital for covid and they received exceptional care. They are right to make those claims. Thankfully, the desperate scenes in Lombardy hospitals that we witnessed on our TV screens were never repeated here. Naturally, I pay tribute to all our NHS staff involved in that and all the staff who ensured the building of Nightingale hospitals, developed new care pathways, and moved to digital care or returned to the frontline. But let us be absolutely clear: that surge capacity in the NHS, and the wider protection of the lockdown, has come at a cost, because millions are waiting for care. For those millions, this has not been a cosy hibernation, as the Prime Minister told us yesterday. It has been a time of struggle, of suffering and of distress.

    Protecting the NHS has been on the back of cancelled operations, delayed treatment, and, arguably, the biggest rationing of services in the 72-year history of the national health service. It has been on the back of shielding some of the most vulnerable in society, who remain anxious and scared today for their personal health and safety as lockdown eases. Let us remember that, when we went into this crisis, we had 4.5 million on the waiting list. We had A&E targets routinely missed. Every winter, we saw the crisis in our hospitals of trolleys lined up in corridors. We have had some of the worst cancer waiting times in history, and now the NHS Confederation is warning ​that elective waiting lists could hit 10 million by Christmas. Yes, referrals are down, as the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), recognised yesterday, but that is because of unmet need in the wider community. Indeed, experts are predicting that about 1.6 million are being added to the waiting list every month. That means ever lengthening queues in our constituencies of people in pain waiting for care. The Minister will know that at the end of January, there were 521,000 people waiting for trauma and orthopaedic surgery, including hip and knee replacements, and probably another 42,000 added to the waiting list each week. That means that thousands of our constituents are waiting in discomfort and pain, often when pain-relieving drugs are inadequate.

    Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

    I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a very important and well-presented case. In my constituency, at Westmorland General Hospital, the trust closed down the Kentmere ward, which is the adult mental health ward. It is fairly obvious that most Members will have had in their inboxes a lot of people presenting with higher degrees of mental health need than during normal times. That ward was closed down temporarily to take account of the crisis. Does he agree that now is the time, particularly with mental health issues, to look again at those temporary closures and to bring the Kentmere ward and other such wards back into service, to meet the needs of those struggling with mental health conditions?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    The hon. Gentleman puts his case persuasively. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who will be winding up the debate for the Opposition, will, I am sure, want to touch more on the mental health impact of the lockdown. It is undeniable that the lockdown has led to unquantifiable mental health problems festering in society, and statistics show an increase in anxiety and depression. There are particular issues around young people not being able to access child and adolescent mental health services. If services have closed, as happened in his constituency, then, yes, we need a plan to ensure that those services are reopened as quickly as possible.

    Another area where we have had access to services restricted is in cancer, and cancer touches everybody. It touches every family. It has touched many Members in this House very individually and personally as well.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What is happening to our cancer services is very important, as he said. Some of the figures are incredible. There are 2.1 million people waiting for breast or cervical screening tests, which is 60% higher than in April 2019. Treatment rates for chemotherapy have fallen by 70%, surgery by 60%, and radiotherapy by 90%. That underlines very critically the severe problems for those with cancer and for those needing treatment right now.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me in making the points that I was hoping to go on to make. I am not surprised that he has made those points given that he is a Leicester City fan. I am very proud to have Leicester City football club in my constituency— ​hopefully we will do better next season. He is absolutely right in what he says, because the statistics on cancer are absolutely terrible.

    Around 2 million people in England are currently waiting for cancer screening tests or cancer treatment, including chemotherapy. Today, we have a published analysis, which shows that those waiting more than six weeks for diagnostic tests—some of these will be for cancer of course—have increased from 30,000 to 469,000 as a result of the lockdown. Cancer referrals are down 60%, and 1 million people are missing out on breast, bowel and cervical cancer screening. That means that about 1,400 cases of cancer are going undiagnosed every month. In March and April alone, there were at least 500 more deaths from cancer than average, and research from University College London predicts that an estimated 17,915 additional deaths of existing and newly diagnosed cancer patients could occur in England in the next 12 months. That is why resetting our NHS and getting it started again is so vital.

    We also know that covid attacks the lungs, so this is an especially frightening time for those with serious asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and emphysema. One in four people with COPD have had a regular GP or hospital appointment cancelled, or both. Some 24% of people on pulmonary rehab programmes have had their classes cancelled, and 600,000 people with asthma or COPD have missed their annual review. The more we know about coronavirus, the more we know it is also a cardiovascular issue. Those with cardio- vascular problems are the second biggest group of those with an underlying condition dying from covid now, yet about 30,000 elective procedures for heart disease have been deferred. Referrals to stroke units have declined, and excess stroke deaths in care homes are 39% higher than the five-year average. We are making these points not in a spirit of blame, but to re-emphasise the point that lockdown has come with huge costs and will inevitably mean that people will die or develop long-term illnesses unless there is now a plan to get the NHS up, running and working again.

    Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)

    It is important that we are clear as to exactly what the Opposition are calling for today. The motion asks for “routine weekly testing”, with no ifs, ands, buts or qualifications. Yet the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks that he is seeking routine testing weekly if it is necessary. So are the Opposition calling for weekly testing, no matter what? Or are they calling for what he said in his opening remarks, which is the possibility of weekly testing?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    We are calling for weekly routine testing, as have many organisations and the Chair of the Select Committee on Health and Social Care. He penned an excellent article in The Daily Telegraph today, and I hope the hon. Gentleman has had time to study it, because it is superb. May I also take this moment to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, because I know he has returned to the frontline? I am sure all of us, from across the House, are grateful for everything he is doing on the frontline.

    The other point I wish to make on this growing burden of unmet clinical need is that there is a social gradient in this, as always; there is a higher mortality ​rate among those who are poorer and more deprived. Through all these different conditions, the poorer someone is, the more likely they are to become ill quicker and die sooner. So we need urgent action from the Government to tackle this, and we believe that regular testing of NHS staff is a key part of that.

    We also need a broader plan to tackle the growing burden of sickness and unmet need. Our NHS will need more resources. We have had years of financial starvation in the NHS. The Government’s funding plan of two years ago fell short of the annual 4% increase that experts said was needed before the pandemic, and the settlement of that long-term plan is surely inadequate post pandemic. We must remember that we entered this crisis after 17,000 bed cuts and years of budget cuts to capital settlements, which have left hospitals crumbling, reliant on out-of-date equipment and grappling with a £6.5 billion repair bill. NHS land and buildings have been sold off. Last year, more than 890 hectares of NHS land was put up for sale. So we will need large-scale investment in the real estate of the NHS to allow health services to reconfigure to treat covid and non-covid patients alike.

    Ministers will say that the NHS will get what it needs, but the reality on the ground is very different. I am sure the Minister for Care will have studied today’s Health Service Journal ahead of the debate and will have seen trust chief executives complaining that the cash that they were promised has not been delivered. They need this cash now if they are to restructure any of their services ahead of the winter. I hope that she will update the House on when those chief executives are going to get the cash they were promised by her Department.

    We will also need real investment in rehabilitation services for those suffering from covid. The more we know about this disease, the more we know that those coming out of hospital are probably doing so with significant long-term chronic conditions. They are going to need support, be it respiratory, neuromuscular or psychological. Community health services are going to see a huge peak in demand now that many have moved out of the community health sector.

    Crucially, to reset services—this comes to the point that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich put to us—we need to ensure that care can be delivered safely, which is why we believe that a mass-testing infrastructure for staff is now so important. We know that around a fifth of covid infections in hospitals are caught in hospital settings. Given the levels of significant asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, we need a proper targeted testing strategy as well. All healthcare workers should be tested regularly—weekly—because a study from Imperial suggested that that would reduce transmission in healthcare settings by up to a third.

    Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

    The hon. Gentleman is eloquently outlining the challenges faced by the NHS in the wake of covid-19. Does he join me in welcoming the movement by the Scottish Government to ensure that social care workers who contract covid-19 are given additional funds on top of statutory sick pay, which is completely inadequate, in order to make sure that they do not lose out for testing positively as a result of their job?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    The hon. Lady makes a very important point, which affects the debate more broadly: those who test positive or are asked to isolate need to be ​given the financial support to do it, and statutory sick pay in many circumstances will not be enough. There are millions of workers—2 million in this country—who do not qualify for statutory sick pay, and just saying that they can apply online for universal credit is not going to be enough.

    We need more radical thinking from the Government. Other countries offer greater financial support to those who are asked to isolate. Other countries even offer hotel rooms to those who are asked to isolate if it is not appropriate for them to isolate at home because of the nature of their housing situation. The Government should be looking into those sorts of things, and I hope the Minister can respond to that.

    The point I was making is that regular testing of staff, whether asymptomatic or not, is so important not only for the safety of those staff and patients, but for building confidence in the NHS more generally. The study from Imperial suggested that it would reduce transmission of covid in healthcare settings by up to a third. We believe that this is a constructive suggestion that we are putting to the Government, which they should take on board and explore. It is disappointing that they are seeking to amend the motion to completely strip that out. They are not even prepared to take it away and look into it. They just want to pass a motion congratulating themselves on their handling of the pandemic.

    A testing strategy for staff and patients, as we are proposing today, is a demand supported by many across the NHS as key to restarting that NHS work.

    “A clear testing strategy is now more important than ever”—

    says Chris Hopson from NHS Providers.

    We

    “need rapid testing available for all staff and patients, whether showing symptoms of COVID-19 or not”—

    says Cancer Research UK.

    “It’s absolutely essential to regain public confidence that we are able to test our staff regularly”—says Derek Alderson of the Royal College of Surgeons. And, of course—the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) will not be surprised that I am going to quote him in this debate—it is a position shared by the former Health Secretary, now the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, who in today’s Telegraph makes the case with far greater eloquence than I could ever muster:

    “Until we minimise the risk of asymptomatic transmission by introducing weekly testing for all NHS and care staff, we are failing in a basic duty of care to the people most likely to die if they get the virus.”

    Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)

    May I put on record my thanks to the hon. Gentleman for praising me in this House for the very first time that I can remember on record?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    I praised him plenty of times from this Dispatch Box. The point is that this is a constructive proposal, which is not a party political point. There are clearly many people across the House who support this proposal. The right hon. Member, the former Health Secretary, also prays in aid in his article—I have it here for Members, if they have not had chance to peruse it—both Tony Blair and William Hague. So we now have a Front Bencher praising Tony Blair from the Dispatch Box—that is probably the first time it has happened on the Labour Front Bench for about 10 years.

    ​Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)

    I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman has improved his reading material. I congratulate him on securing the debate, and on his constructive tone. In that vein, in addition to the proposals that he is setting out, will he recognise that we are able to start unlocking the economy today because of the herculean efforts made in areas such as PPE, and the contribution made by the private healthcare sector, which has a valuable role to play as we move towards more of the elective care that we now need?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    I know that the hon. Gentleman is always keen to support those on his Front Bench. Indeed, he was one of the few Tory Members who actually supported Mr Cummings, tweeting:

    “Another media non-story when there are so many important ‘real’ stories of this crisis”.

    The Government were slow in getting PPE to the frontline, slow in ramping up testing, slow in going into lockdown, slow in getting tracing going and slow in protecting care homes. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman recognises my constructive tone, but it does not mean that I will not highlight the failing of this Government in their mishandling of many aspects of the pandemic.

    I must now move on, having spent some time in this mutual love-in with the former Health Secretary. I do not want to damage his career any further, although he is probably not on the Prime Minister’s Christmas card list at the moment.

    I hope that the Government will engage seriously with our suggestion of regular testing for all NHS staff, because we believe that is a crucial part of an effective test, trace and isolate strategy. The problem is that the testing and tracing is still not as effective as it should be. Of course, we recall that testing and tracing was abandoned on 12 March, and the Government have been playing catch-up ever since. At Health questions yesterday the Secretary of State could not even tell us how many people were being tested on a daily basis. I hope that the Minister will now get us that information.

    Local authorities are still not receiving localised data, which is very serious. At Thursday’s press conference—the Prime Minister has now got rid of the press conferences—the Health Secretary casually announced, in response to a question, that Leicester is experiencing one of the highest spikes in the country. Nearly a week later, the local authority still does not have specific postcode data on where the people who have tested positive are. The Secretary of State announced that last Thursday, and today is Wednesday. We do not have that data because the data protection protocols have still not been agreed. This is shambolic. The Government cannot announce that there is an outbreak in a particular part of the country but then not provide the local authority with the data it needs to put in place the necessary measures.

    Jim Shannon

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Jonathan Ashworth

    Given that the hon. Gentleman is a Leicester City fan, I will.

    Jim Shannon

    I am always pleased to intervene on anyone, but especially a Leicester City supporter.

    On systematic testing, the figures from Cancer Research UK are critical, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. Between 21,000 and 37,000 tests would be required ​every day across UK cancer services just to catch up. That underlines how important the testing is, and that is just for those who have cancer.

    Jonathan Ashworth

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that is why we have brought forward this debate. I think that we all understand why a lot of elective surgery and treatment had to be paused, but now that the lockdown is being eased, Government Ministers need to tell us how they are going to start treatment again, and how people who have been waiting for treatment, whether for cancer or for heart disease, or for a hip replacement, are going to get that important care.

    We have a situation in which GPs cannot carry out tests, book tests or refer patients for tests. If someone goes to one of the Deloitte drive-through testing centres, or one of the centres where that role has been subcontracted to someone else, there is no requirement for the results to be sent back to their GP. GPs do not know who in their local area has been tested positive, because that is not going on their health records. This is shambolic. At the same time, the Government have given a £100 million contract to call centres run by Serco and Sitel, where tracers are complaining that it is chaotic and they have nothing to do. I do not know whether the Minister read the testimony, published in the British Medical Journal, of a clinician working in one of the call centres. They wrote:

    “NHS Professionals employed us as clinical tracers, but we were recruited by Capita… Sitel provided access to the tracing applications and systems, and these all required different usernames and passwords. Synergy CRM assigned cases…CTAS captured contact tracing information, RingCentral was used for voice calls, and MaxConnect was used for storing knowledge about contacts. All of these systems were accessed through Amazon Workspace.”

    This sounds a complete mess. At the same time, the chief executive of Serco is saying that this is an opportunity for it to “cement” its role in the NHS. Serco should not be an excuse for more NHS outsourcing and privatisation. Serco should be kicked out of our NHS, and local public health officials and GPs should be leading the tracing response.

    And, of course, the Secretary of State has failed to deliver on his app, with months wasted and £11.8 million confirmed as down the drain by the Minister in the Lords yesterday. We are now in the dismal situation where there is an app for the Secretary of State himself, but there is not even an app for covid. You really could not make it up, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    We believe that it is time for the Government to invest in public health services, to put GPs in the driving seat of testing, to give local authorities the localised data that they need and to begin a programme of routine testing of all NHS staff, whether symptomatic or not. We accept and understand that Ministers will have made mistakes throughout this crisis. It was an unprecedented pandemic, but Ministers have been slow, their response has been disorganised and the scale and nature of the pandemic, even though it was at the top of the risk register, at times underestimated.

    However, Ministers can learn from their mistakes. They can take the advice of the former Health Secretary and they can take the advice of their former leader and former Foreign Secretary. They can start putting in place a programme for mass testing, starting with NHS ​staff, because we need it for our national health service. Our constituents are waiting in pain, agony and distress for treatment. It is time to deliver the care they deserve, and I commend our motion, constructively, to the House.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2020 Letter and Documents Relating to Westferry Printworks

    Robert Jenrick – 2020 Letter and Documents Relating to Westferry Printworks

    Below is the text of the letter sent by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee on 24 June 2020.

    Letter

    Appendix with Documents Released

  • David Linden – 2020 Speech on Westferry Printworks Development

    David Linden – 2020 Speech on Westferry Printworks Development

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Linden, the SNP MP for Glasgow East, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2020.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to speak for more than about five or six minutes, if that is of help to the House.

    The seriousness of these allegations merits a high-profile and far-reaching investigation, so I thank the Opposition for tabling this motion on the Westferry scandal. In contrast, the Government appear to just hope that it will simply disappear. I am still not entirely clear from what the Secretary of State said whether the Government will oppose the motion in the Division Lobby tonight. The motion before us certainly has the full support of the SNP, and we will vote in favour of it if the Government are daft enough to push it to a Division, which I must suggest to them would not look good.

    I must confess that I do not like the all-too-frequent fixture in our politics of calling for ministerial resignations left, right and centre. However, in this case the conduct of the Secretary of State is seriously called into question when he himself has acknowledged that this decision was made unlawfully. In any other circumstance, this would already be difficult territory for the Secretary of State to try to wriggle off the hook, but the fact that this £1 billion housing development is linked to a Tory donor means it stinks—and it stinks, frankly, to high heavens.

    Put simply, this is a classic Tory sleaze scandal that involves money and the Conservatives scratching one another’s backs. For a minute, let us put to one side the fact that the development’s owner is Richard Desmond, a multibillionaire and former owner of the Daily Express, and look solely at the fact that the development was originally denied by the Planning Inspectorate for failing to deliver enough affordable housing. That should not be overlooked, because the Government’s record on building affordable housing, let alone social housing, is absolutely woeful. We respect the fact that the impartial Planning Inspectorate rejected the application on reasonable grounds. Most of us can follow the logic on that.

    Here is the nub of the matter, and why the Secretary of State’s position is so weak. The decision of the impartial Planning Inspectorate was overruled by the Secretary of State on 14 January, less than 24 hours before the introduction of a community infrastructure levy that would have cost the developer £40 million. Soon after the decision to approve the project was made, Richard Desmond makes a new £12,000 donation to the Conservative party. In the eyes of the public, the Secretary of State steps in and saves the developer £40 million in the community infrastructure levy, and then miraculously, the developer later makes a donation to the Conservative party. Surely no self-respecting Member of the House, not even the keenest December-intake Member, cannot see that that absolutely stinks.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    David Linden

    I am very happy to, if the hon. Gentleman wants to defend this one.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    I do not think any self-respecting Member of this House should twist an argument like that. It did not save the developer £40 million. That money would have been taken directly off the allocation for affordable homes. Has the hon. Gentleman read the document? Has he read the inspector’s report? That is exactly what it says.

    David Linden

    I have, but part of the issue is that so few documents are in circulation. That is the whole point of the motion before the House and that is what we are calling for. If the hon. Gentleman wants people to read documents, he will be in the Lobby with us to make sure that those documents are published.

    To make matters worse, we have also learned that Mr Desmond, who is, let us not forget, a property developer, and the Secretary of State, who has a quasi-judicial role in the planning process, were sat together at a Tory fundraiser in November. This is the point that I was trying to intervene on the Secretary of State about earlier, because he glossed over that.

    “What I did was I showed him the video”.

    They are not my words but the words of Richard Desmond, who says that the Secretary of State watched a promotional video for the development of Westferry for three or four minutes and:

    “It’s quite long, so he got the gist.”

    In the course of the Secretary of State’s remarks, hon. Members were trying to intervene to ask whether he had watched the video, but I do not think that he was clear. I am happy to give way to him now if he wants to come to the Dispatch Box and put it on record that he did watch the video.

    Robert Jenrick

    As I have said repeatedly, I confirm that I was seated next to Mr Desmond. I did not expect to be seated beside him. He raised the application, as I said the last time that I came to the House on this matter. He said that he showed me part of the video and I do not recall exactly what happened, but he did bring out his iPhone and show me some images of the development. I was very clear the last time I came to the House that I informed the developer that it was not appropriate to discuss the matter and I could not comment on it, and I believe that Mr Desmond has confirmed that.

    David Linden

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the intervention. On that point, I give way to the shadow Secretary of State.

    Steve Reed

    I want to share a direct quote from Richard Desmond given to The Sunday Times about the video. These are his words: “What I did was I showed him the video because we’ve got a video of the site. He got the gist. He thanked me”.

    David Linden

    This is the very point. The shadow Secretary of State has hit the nail on the head, because that was wrong. The Secretary of State should have run for the hills, never touched the issue ever again and flagged the conflict of interest to his departmental officials.

    Wes Streeting

    I wanted to put this question to the Secretary of State, who said he did not know that he would be seated next to Mr Desmond. He said that at the Dispatch Box and I will take him at his word. Are we seriously meant to believe, however, that Mr Desmond did not know that he was going to be sat next to the Secretary of State? Having talked to people I know who worked in professional fundraising and political fundraising, the question of cash for access is crucial. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Conservative party should publish all correspondence with Mr Desmond and his associates about the booking of the table at the dinner, and Mr Desmond’s expectations as to whether he knew that he would be sat with the Secretary of State?

    David Linden

    I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Many of us, for very understandable reasons because of what is in “Erskine May” and the Standing Orders of this House, are trying very hard to stick to the rules in here, but the reality is that members of the public watching this debate on TV or reading it in Hansard will find it rather strange that a Conservative party fundraiser was organised and that the Secretary of State, who has a quasi-judicial role in the planning process, happened to be sat next to Mr Desmond.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the point I made earlier? For a local councillor on a planning committee, all red lights would have gone on to say, “This looks bad. I cannot take part in a decision when I have sat next to somebody who is putting in a very big planning application.”

    David Linden

    The hon. Lady is right. She refers to her experience in local government. It is clear that anybody in this House who has served as a councillor—I have not—would realise that this is something from which they must absolutely run for the hills and at least flag it to their departmental officials—and, presumably, their political advisers too.

    At that stage, without any shadow of a doubt, the Secretary of State’s position was compromised, but he ploughed on regardless. It was, I am afraid, a clear political decision that has directly enriched a Tory party donor and is worryingly close to being a textbook example of cash for favours.

    The Conservative party, however, does not appear to care. Let’s face it: why should we hold our breath? This, after all, is the party reportedly nominating Peter Cruddas, a man who resigned from the Conservatives as co-treasurer in 2012 following a cash-for-access scandal, for a peerage. The Conservatives do not seem to see anything problematic about rewarding someone who donated £50,000 to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign and £3 million to the Tory party since 2007. Why on earth, then, would we expect them to hold the Housing Secretary to higher standards? I think, however, that Opposition Members will.

    Transparency is now imperative. It is important that the papers called for in today’s motion are released without delay and without obstruction. I am afraid I do not buy the point made by the Secretary of State that some papers would be published. If the Government want to publish the papers, they will not oppose the motion at four o’clock this afternoon. Anybody who hears Conservative Members yelling “No” tonight will find that there is something seriously to be hidden on their part and I do not think that that is a good look. If the documents released do reveal a direct link between the decision that the Secretary of State made and Mr Desmond’s donation to the Conservatives, then the Secretary of State must demit office.

    The Government need to accept that this scandal is not going to go away. We can all quite clearly see, without the need to take a day trip to Barnard Castle, that this episode further damages the credibility of a Government who are losing trust faster than Dominic Cummings can run out of Downing Street to escape for his Durham bolthole. A little over a decade ago, David Cameron said, “We’re all in this together”. Except we’re not, are we? Whether it is rewarding party donors with life peerages, a different set of rules for the Prime Minister’s special adviser or the Westferry Printworks scandal, time and again the Tories are proving that it is one rule for them and one rule for everybody else.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2020 Speech on Westferry Printworks Development

    Robert Jenrick – 2020 Speech on Westferry Printworks Development

    Below is the text of the speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2020.

    I welcome the opportunity to address the House today on this matter. I will write to the Chair of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—

    Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will give way in a moment to the hon. Gentleman, but he could let me even begin my remarks, if he is truly interested in what I have to say. I will write to the Chair of the Select Committee outlining the timeline of events and the rationale for my decision making pertaining to the Westferry Printworks planning decision. Alongside this letter, and after a comprehensive review of what documents might be in scope of this motion and of the letter he sent me on behalf of his Select Committee, I will be releasing, later today, all relevant information relating to this planning matter, using the Freedom of Information Act as a benchmark. I recognise that there are higher standards of transparency expected in the quasi-judicial planning process, which is why I will also release discussions and correspondence that the Government would not normally release.

    These documents show that, contrary to the wild accusations and baseless innuendo propagated by the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) and restated today in a series of totally inaccurate statements and comments, this decision was taken with an open mind, on the merits of the case, after a thorough decision-making process. It was rooted in my long-standing and well documented view that we have a generational challenge as a country, which we need to meet and not shirk, to build more houses in all parts of this country and that whoever holds this office, whether it is me, another Member from my party or the hon. Gentleman, must make those tough decisions in order to build the homes that this country needs and to build a better future for the next generation.

    Mr Perkins

    The Secretary of State says that he is pleased to have this debate and started his speech by saying that he is going to release all of these documents. Why is he doing that today? He is releasing them because he has been forced to come here by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North. If the Secretary of State wanted some transparency, instead of having to have this dragged out of him, he would have done this weeks ago.

    Robert Jenrick

    The hon Gentleman is completely incorrect in that respect. First, a lot of documents are already in the public domain, and I will come on to discuss that. The reasons for my decision are set out clearly in the decision letter. From the comments that we have heard from the hon. Member for Croydon North, I suspect he has not taken the trouble to read it. The inspector’s report is already in the public domain, with the representations made by the parties. Since my receipt of the letter from the Chair of the Select Committee, we have undertaken the process I have just described, which, as Members can imagine, is not one that one does in a day or two. It has taken us time. As Members will see when I publish the documents later today, and in the letter I have written to the Chair of the Select Committee, we have taken that process very seriously, because transparency matters, openness matters and settling this matter matters, because I certainly do not want to be the subject of the innuendo and false accusations that the Opposition are choosing to peddle.

    Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)

    I thank the Secretary of State for committing to publish that document and send it to the Select Committee, although it might have been helpful if we had had it before the debate today. The Committee will obviously want to look at it and may then want to enter into further communication or, indeed, even talk to the Secretary of State about it. I ask him one thing: will the documentation that he sends to the Select Committee include everything that he said to the Cabinet Secretary following his investigations into the matter?

    Robert Jenrick

    It will include most of that information, subject only to the benchmark of the Freedom of Information Act, which I have just described. I think that is the right approach, and it is on the advice of my Department that I do that. If this debate truly is—I suspect it is not, because I suspect this debate is mainly motivated by party political considerations—concerned with the probity of the planning system, I am sure that the Chair of the Select Committee, for whom I have the greatest respect, would agree that it is absolutely right that we release documentation in accordance with the rules, bearing in mind that this is a live planning matter.

    Nick Smith rose—

    Robert Jenrick

    I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, but first let me make some progress.

    For the benefit of the House, I take this opportunity to outline the facts of the case. As Members will be aware, the Secretary of State’s role in deciding called-in planning applications and recovered appeals is very long established. The vast majority of planning decisions are rightly determined at a local level by local planning authorities. However, Parliament has created provision whereby a small proportion of cases are determined by Ministers. The cases that fall to Ministers are by their nature highly contentious, frequently very complex and sometimes very subjective. There is no escaping that reality. It is not unusual for Ministers to come to a different conclusion from that of a local authority. Nor is it unusual, as has been said, for Ministers to disagree with the recommendations of planning inspectors, and I say that with no disrespect to the brilliant men and women who work in the Planning Inspectorate. My predecessors from both sides of the House have done so on multiple occasions.

    Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will in just a moment, but I want to make a bit more progress, because it is important to set out the facts. In the past three years, 14 substantive decisions have been made by Ministers in disagreement with the recommendations of the inspector. Such applications cannot be easily compared and each case must be determined on its own merits, and that is what I have done in all cases since becoming Secretary of State, as the documents that I intend to publish will, I hope, demonstrate.

    Nick Smith

    Did the Secretary of State view the promotional video at the Conservative party fundraiser, and did he tell his officials in his Department the next day?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will come on to a description of those events in a moment, if I may, and answer the hon. Gentleman’s question at that point.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will just make some more progress, then I will come back to the hon. Lady.

    In July 2018, Westferry Developments submitted a planning application for a large development comprising 1,500 homes, including affordable homes, shops and office space. The case was with Tower Hamlets Council for eight months, and over that period, despite having five determination meetings arranged, it failed to make a decision. It is disappointing that the council failed to meet its statutory requirements, but it is not surprising. In the past five years, 30 planning applications have been decided at appeal because of non-determination by the council.

    The council had considerable time to process the application. Indeed, a meeting of the strategic development committee was cancelled in January 2019 due to lack of business. Is it fair to say that there is a lack of business when we are in a housing crisis and the council has applications such as this before it? Does the Labour party believe that is fair? In our system of law, justice delayed is justice denied, and that is what Tower Hamlets Council was trying to do here.

    Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will in a moment.

    This, I remind the House, is the council that has the highest housing deficit in England, according to the housing delivery test. Given Tower Hamlets’ failure to determine the case within the prescribed period, on 26 March, the developer exercised their right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate and, after advice, my predecessor—not me, as has been said on many occasions by many individuals, including the hon. Member for Croydon North—took the decision to recover the appeal. All the parties were notified about this in a letter dated 10 April 2019.

    So before I give way to hon. Members, let us be clear. I did not call in this application; I was not the Secretary of State. The application was not called in; it came to the Department because of the failure of Tower Hamlets Council. Here we have a council, described by one of my predecessors as a “rotten borough”, failing time and again to make decisions and get houses built and a Mayor of London with a dire record on housing leaving us to step in and take the tough decisions that they refuse to make.

    Wes Streeting

    I wondered how long it would be before we got on to the deflections on to Tower Hamlets Council and the Mayor of London, but it is a fact, is it not, that the leader of the Conservative group on the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, Councillor Andrew Wood, resigned from the Conservative party, not citing the Mayor of London or Labour Tower Hamlets Council, but citing the actions of the Conservative party and this decision, which he described as

    “so shocking I knew immediately that I had to resign.”

    Is that not a fact?

    Robert Jenrick

    It is not a deflection to talk about Tower Hamlets Council because in all likelihood this decision would never have been made by the Secretary of State if Tower Hamlets Council had met its statutory obligations and taken the decision. With respect to the councillor the hon. Gentleman mentions, who I do not know but with whom I have no issue, he was standing up for the concerns of his local residents. I return to the point that I made earlier that in my job it is essential to make—[Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. Stop shouting at the Minister. It is not how we do things here.

    Robert Jenrick

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Rushanara Ali rose—

    Robert Jenrick

    I will give way to the hon. Lady, as she is one of the Tower Hamlets Members of Parliament, and then I will make some progress, if I may.

    Rushanara Ali

    What is rotten at the heart of this scandal is the Secretary of State’s behaviour. It is wrong for him to attack Tower Hamlets Council, which was negotiating a better deal for residents and trying to get more social housing. He should get his facts straight before he starts deflecting blame on to a council that has built houses under the last Conservative mayoralty, as well as the current mayoralty. He should sort out the rottenness at the heart of his Department and his Government.

    Robert Jenrick

    There is nothing rotten in my Department. I have some of the best officials in Whitehall, with whom I am extremely proud to work. The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways. If she disagrees with my decision, she should go back to Tower Hamlets Council and tell it to start making decisions itself, not frustrating planning applications so that they come to me and I and my predecessors and successors have to make the tough decisions.

    Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I must make progress.

    Apsana Begum

    Given that the Prime Minister pushed through the original scheme for the same developer when he was Mayor of London, does the Secretary of State feel that the documents on any involvement of No. 10, or any conversation about the Secretary of State’s decision to grant approval should also be published?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am publishing, as I have just said, in an almost unprecedented way, a very comprehensive set of documents, which I think Members on both sides of the House will be more than satisfied with.

    I would just politely note to the hon. Lady that her name did come up in the correspondence and advice that I received from officials; the names of MPs do come up when I take these decisions. I asked my officials, “Did the local Member of Parliament make any representations with respect to this application because I want to take into account the views of Members on all sides of this House?” As she will see in the documents, they advised me that the Member of Parliament made no representations. The Member of Parliament—in their words, I think, but I stand to be corrected—took no interest in the application, and neither did her predecessor, so she may be outraged today, but I suggest that Members on both sides of the House who care about contentious planning applications should make representations to the Secretary of State, because I am not a mind reader.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    Let me just make some progress, if I may.

    It is on public record that in November 2019, during the general election campaign, I was invited to a Conservative party event. This is not unusual for a Government Minister. I was seated next to Mr Desmond at the Conservative dinner, although, as I have said, I did not know the seating plan prior to arrival. I was not familiar with the majority of the table, but I understand that it included the editor of the Daily Mirror, the editor of the Express newspaper, executives from Northern & Shell and a former Conservative Member of Parliament. I had not planned to have any contact with Mr Desmond prior to the event. That was the first time I had ever met him.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    No.

    He raised the development and invited me on a site visit. I informed him that it would not be appropriate to discuss the matter, and the conversation moved on to other topics. After the event, we exchanged messages. Again, as the record will show, I advised him that I was unable to discuss the application or to pass comment. I informed my officials of my contact with Mr Desmond, and I will publish these messages for transparency. On advice from my officials, I declined the site visit. All decision makers in the planning process receive unsolicited representations from time to time. It would be perverse if any decision maker was barred from taking a decision because of unsolicited representations. Indeed, section 25 of the Localism Act 2011 clarified the law to protect against the overzealous application of the planning rules.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    Not at this time.

    Housing Secretaries of all parties naturally come into contact with those involved in housing, by which I do not simply mean developers; I mean councils, housing associations, builders and contractors. The key point is that the final decision is always made with an open mind based on the material considerations of the case.

    Wera Hobhouse

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will give way to the hon. Lady because she had been trying very hard.

    Wera Hobhouse

    I was a member of a local planning committee. There are strict rules and a code of conduct for councillors to declare either a private or a prejudicial interest, at which point they go out of the room and take no further part in the decision. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that a Secretary of State should live under different rules from local councillors?

    Robert Jenrick

    Of course not. It is extremely important that we maintain the probity of the planning system, and that is what I believe I have done in this case. The hon. Lady can be a judge of that, if she wishes, when she sees the documents.

    David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) rose—

    Robert Jenrick

    If I may, I will make some progress. I am conscious that a lot of time is passing.

    In the same month, the planning inspector submitted his report to me recommending that the appeal be dismissed. As is usual, my officials reviewed the inspector’s report and prepared advice for me to consider. I reviewed this, along with advice on six other urgent planning cases, upon my return to the Department in December following the general election.

    Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    Not at this time. I need to make some progress.

    Upon reviewing the advice on Westferry, including the inspector’s recommendation, I requested further advice on key questions—for example, asking the Department to source images to understand the potential impact of the scheme on historic Greenwich. Having reviewed all the evidence and taken a further in-depth meeting with senior officials to discuss the case in the first week in January, I determined to allow the appeal and grant planning permission. As I have set out in the letter to the Select Committee Chair, in coming to the decision I considered the significant contribution of housing in a part of the country that is particularly unaffordable, including almost 300 affordable homes, as well as the significant economic benefits from the development, including the hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs that it would have created. The House should remember that we are talking about a large brownfield site in a part of London that already has a high number of tall buildings, so in many respects it is exactly the kind of location where we should be building homes if we are serious about tackling London’s housing needs.

    On 14 January, my full rationale was published in the usual way, through the decision letter, with the full inspector’s report. In this case, Tower Hamlets and the Mayor of London challenged the decision in court, as happens in many cases. The irony, of course, is that, as we have already discussed, they could have made the decision themselves but chose not to do so.

    On 21 May 2020, my Department proposed that the decision be quashed and redetermined by another Minister in the usual way. The other parties to the matter—Tower Hamlets Council, the Mayor of London and the developer—agreed and the court duly consented. My rationale was that although there was no actual bias whatsoever in the decision making for the application, inferences, even of the appearance of bias, could harm the integrity of the planning system. I did not want that to happen.

    Nick Smith

    Will the Secretary of State give way??

    Robert Jenrick

    I will give way one more time, but let me make this point first.

    I cannot say at this point which Minister will take this matter forward. We will ensure that it is someone who has no previous connection to the case or its parties, as we do in other instances. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Croydon North to the fact that there are several planning Ministers in my Department, and although all actions go out in the name of the Secretary of State, by no means does the Secretary of State take all the decisions in the Department. For example, in the Sandown Park racecourse case to which he referred earlier, the decision was taken by another planning Minister and was one about which I knew none of the facts until it was incorrectly reported by The Times newspaper and propagated once again by the hon. Gentleman.

    Sarah Jones

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    No; I wish to make this point, because it is important. The hon. Member for Croydon North also propagated another inaccurate story that is more serious and disappointing, and that is the one in respect of the application to build a new holocaust memorial for the United Kingdom in the grounds of this building. There has been a suggestion that in that case I used my powers as Secretary of State to call in the application. That is incorrect. The Secretary of State is the applicant for the holocaust memorial, and there is a clear Chinese wall whereby another Minister in the Department who has no interest in that application takes the ultimate decision. That is exactly what we did in that case, so I strongly urge Members from all parties, as well as the media who have reported on that issue, to tread carefully. We should not bring something as important as our national holocaust memorial into this party political discussion.

    Tim Farron

    I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very decent with his time.

    The Secretary of State has made the case that he felt the need to intervene in this case to deliver housing. Does he understand my frustration and the frustration of many other Members present? In my part of the world, we have London house prices without anything like London wages. We regularly look to his Department to intervene to help to deliver affordable houses, yet his Department allows developers to get away with viability assessments that get rid of affordable housing. I wish he was also tough in cases when it comes to the Lake District and other parts of the country.

    Robert Jenrick

    I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has asked to call in applications; he certainly has not come to see me about any applications during the past 12 months of my tenure, but I would happily meet him in the appropriate way if he wishes to do so. My record as Secretary of State is clear for all to see in the range of applications that I have considered and the difficult decisions that I have consistently made, which affect Members from all parties and their constituencies. If one does this job properly, one gets homes built. One does not necessarily make friends, and I make no apologies for that. Each decision must be made on its merits, but if we want to tackle the housing crisis, we need to build homes.

    Nick Smith

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Sarah Jones

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    Let me let me make some progress, because many other speakers wish to participate in this debate.

    Any accusation that my view on a highly complex and publicised development could have been swayed by an encounter with a developer is not just simply wrong, but actually outrageous.

    Who the applicant was is immaterial to my decision, as it always is, and always should be. I knew nothing of the donation that was made and would never have allowed it to influence my decision, even if I had known about it. However, I am not blind to the fact that things could and should have been done differently. On reflection, I should have handled the communication differently—[Interruption.] Let me make this point, please.

    It is unfortunate that some have sought partisan advantage in this, rather than having a serious discussion about Britain’s housing shortage. I stand by the decision that I made.

    I believe passionately that Britain needs to build houses and that is what we are doing. Indeed, the Government’s track record on housing delivery stands in stark contrast to that of the Opposition. Last year, we delivered 240,000 homes, more new homes than at any point in the past 30 years, taking the total delivered since 2010 to 1.5 million. By comparison, under Labour, house building fell to levels not seen since the 1920s, with the number of first-time buyers down by 50% and the number of socially rented homes down by 420,000.

    Nick Smith

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Sarah Jones

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I have given way many times. I cannot be accused of not giving way—I have done it enough times. I need to make progress and I want to ensure others have their say.

    The only thing that went up under Labour was social housing waiting lists, so I will not take lessons from Labour on housing, particularly on affordable housing. This development was going to build 282 affordable homes. That is actually more affordable homes than the Labour Welsh Government has built as council houses in the whole of Wales in five years. Last year in Wales the Labour party only built 57 council houses—

    Sarah Jones

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am not giving way to the hon. Lady. I think I have made that perfectly—

    Sarah Jones rose—

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. The hon. Lady must sit down. She cannot be standing up in the Chamber. If the Secretary of State wants to give way, he will give way, and she must not heckle.

    Robert Jenrick

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think they actually want to hear an explanation.

    We only have to look to London, which faces some of the most acute housing pressures in the whole country, to see examples of what a lack of leadership and ambition means on the ground. Under the current Mayor of London, housing delivery has averaged just 37,000 a year, falling short of the existing London plan and well below the Mayor’s own assessment of housing need. The average price of a new build home in London has gone up by 12 times average earnings. The need for bold action was clear earlier this year, when I was left with no option but to directly intervene in the Mayor’s London plan. I do not apologise for doing that, for continuing to push for homes to be built in our capital city, as across the country, to meet our ambition as a Government to build 300,000 homes a year and to give young people, families and the most vulnerable people in our society the opportunity and security that previous generations enjoyed.

    In that endeavour, it is right that we seek to make the most of existing sites, particularly in urban areas, with jobs, transport links and other amenities close by—brownfield sites such as the one we are discussing today. That is why we as a Government and I as Secretary of State have consistently taken pro-regeneration decisions, in order to turn those sites into homes and into employment opportunities. This development would have done that, but every time a do-nothing Labour council and a do-nothing Labour Mayor plays politics with homes and jobs it is ultimately people who miss out. They miss out on homes and they miss out on jobs. That matters, because as we come out of covid and we are trying to recover our economy, we should be thinking about the brickies and the plumbers, the van drivers, the labourers—the people whose jobs and livelihoods depend on these projects. We will get building. We will build ourselves out of this crisis and create the jobs that we need in this country.

    I hope that the publication of these documents and my remarks today will go some way to putting an end to the innuendos and false accusations from the hon. Member for Croydon North. He might just address the big issues, upon which he has been conspicuously silent since taking office. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), used to raise rough sleeping, how we were responding to covid, and pressures on local council finances. He used to be constructive. He also used to probe and hold the Government to account. I cannot say the same for the hon. Member for Croydon North. He lives on his Twitter account, and he lives for smears and innuendos, not substance. He might speak to substance, not just party politics.

    Wes Streeting

    Will the Secretary of State give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will not; I am closing now.

    This Government are determined to build the homes the country needs. We are determined to end rough sleeping, as the House will see today from the announcement of more than £100 million of funding to help local councils to provide better quality accommodation for the 15,000 rough sleepers that we have helped off the streets and protected from covid as a result of the pandemic. We will continue to help renters by reforming their rights and ensuring that they weather the economic storms to come as a result of the pandemic. We will promote beautiful, well-designed new communities, working with the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission to radically change the way in which we consider our planning system.

    We will speed up and reform the planning system to get those homes built, to ensure that infrastructure is laid at pace and that developers, housing associations, councils and everyone who cares about the future of this country and the homes that people deserve to live in can move forward with confidence and certainty. And we will invest in more affordable homes through the largest affordable homes programme this country has seen in a decade, building hundreds of thousands of new homes of all types and tenures in all parts of the country, so that families in Tower Hamlets, in London and elsewhere in this country can live with dignity and security and pursue their dreams and the opportunity, which many of us in the House enjoy, to have a high-quality home of their own. That is what the British people expect, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I intend to deliver.

  • Steve Reed – 2020 Statement on Westferry Printworks Development

    Steve Reed – 2020 Statement on Westferry Printworks Development

    Below is the text of the statement made by Steve Reed, the Labour MP for Croydon North, in the House of Commons on 24 June 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give a direction to Her Ministers to provide all correspondence, including submissions and electronic communications, involving Ministers and Special Advisers pertaining to the Westferry Printworks Development and the subsequent decision by the Secretary of State to approve its planning application at appeal to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee.

    The Westferry case, and the role of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in it, has blown apart confidence in the planning system. The only way to put that right is for the Secretary of State to publish the evidence about what really happened. If he has done nothing wrong, he has nothing to fear. I hope that he will welcome this opportunity to restore trust in a sector that will be so critical in rebuilding Britain after the lockdown.

    In November last year, the Secretary of State attended an exclusive Conservative party fundraising dinner. He was seated next to Richard Desmond, the owner of Northern & Shell, and three of his senior executives. I understand that Mr Desmond’s lobbyists—a company called Thorncliffe—had been busy selling tickets to the event to people who wanted access to the Secretary of State.

    Northern & Shell is the applicant behind the Westferry Printworks development in Tower Hamlets, a highly controversial live planning application on which the Secretary of State was due to take a final decision. Ministers are not allowed to take planning decisions if they have been lobbied by the applicant. Under the ministerial code, Ministers are required not to place themselves under an obligation by, for instance, helping to raise funds from a donor who stands to benefit from the decisions they make, because it raises questions about cash for favours, which would be a serious abuse of power.

    Tower Hamlets Council was opposed to the Westferry scheme because it was oversized and lacked affordable housing, and the Secretary of State’s own planning inspector agreed with the council. However, on 14 January, just weeks after he had dined with Mr Desmond, the Secretary of State overruled them and forced the scheme through. He claims that he had no idea he would be sitting next to Mr Desmond and his senior executives.

    The Secretary of State has not yet told us whether Conservative party officials knew and whether they sold tickets on that basis, as Thorncliffe seems to believe they did; he has not explained why, since he admits that the meeting gives rise to apparent bias, he did not ask to be re-seated elsewhere as soon as he realised who he was sitting next to; and he has given no reason why he did not immediately recuse himself from any further involvement in the decision.

    The Secretary of State assured the House only last week that he did not discuss the scheme with Mr Desmond. Unfortunately for him, Mr Desmond says that they did. He has gone further and told us that the Secretary of State viewed a promotional video about the scheme on Mr Desmond’s phone—something the Secretary of State failed to mention to the House.

    It is very hard to imagine that the Westferry scheme did not crop up during the three hours or so that the Secretary of State must have been sitting next to the owner of Northern & Shell and three of his most senior executives. Viewing Mr Desmond’s video is not cutting off the discussion, as the Secretary of State told the House; it is the developer lobbying the Secretary of State, and apparently with some considerable success.

    The Secretary of State has still not confirmed when and how he notified officials in his Department about this encounter. Was it before he took the decision, or was it afterwards? What was their advice to him? It is hard to believe, if he was honest with them about viewing the video, that they did not advise him to recuse himself immediately—so did they, and did he overrule them so that he could do favours for a friend?

    The Secretary of State took his decision to approve the Westferry scheme on 14 January. That was one day before a new community infrastructure levy came into force. The timing of the Secretary of State’s decision saved Mr Desmond up to £50 million.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)

    I think the hon. Gentleman may be unintentionally misleading the House on that point. It did not save the developers £50 million. If he reads the inspector’s report on this, he will see that it quite clearly says that the schedule 15 viability assessment can be rerun in the event that the appeal scheme becomes liable for community infrastructure levy. The report states:

    “The adjustment is likely to reduce the amount of affordable housing.”

    What the Secretary of State did was to make sure that the right proportion of affordable housing was delivered on that scheme. The hon. Gentleman is saying, quite wrongly, that that was not the reason. If he repeats that, or anyone else does, in this debate, they will therefore be intentionally misleading this House.

    Steve Reed

    I am going to come on to the issue of the proportion of affordable housing that was included in the scheme. The timing of the decision is a further issue on which I am seeking clarification from the Secretary of State. He could easily provide that if he published the documents behind it. I hope that he will, and that Conservative Members will all be voting for that when this debate concludes.

    Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

    Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the Secretary of State’s behaviour, viability assessments are used by developers around the country to frustrate the affordable housing targets of local councils and planning authorities. South Lakeland District Council, Lake District National Park and Yorkshire Dales National Park do their best to provide affordable housing in a place where average house prices can be well in excess of a quarter of a million pounds, but viability assessments are often used to frustrate that process. Would it not be better if the Secretary of State were to stand up in the interests of affordable housing and not in the interests of the developer?

    Steve Reed

    The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and I agree with him. Indeed, the Secretary of State allowed the applicant to reduce the proportion of affordable and social housing in the scheme from the 35% supported by his own advisers to the 21% preferred by Mr Desmond. According to Tower Hamlets Council, that decision saved Mr Desmond a further £106 million. That is a considerable amount of money in total that the Secretary of State saved Mr Desmond—money that would have gone to fund things like schools, libraries, youth clubs or clinics in one of the most deprived communities anywhere in this country.

    Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)

    I represent one of the two Tower Hamlets constituencies. We have the highest child poverty rate in the country and the most overcrowding in the country. Denying that borough a combined total of £150 million is a disgrace. The Secretary of State ought to publish the documents and come clean today.

    Steve Reed

    I very much agree with my hon. Friend. If the Secretary of State will agree today to publish the documents, we can all see, with full transparency, what really went on. That is all we are seeking in this debate.

    Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)

    Is it not also the case that Labour-run Tower Hamlets Council has £567 million in usable reserves and is losing £3 million to £4 million a year in inflation because it is not spending the money it has got in the bank, which is just sitting there?

    Steve Reed

    I am afraid I do not know Tower Hamlets Council’s budget in sufficient detail, but I do know that councils across the country face a funding gap of around one fifth of their annual revenue budget because the Government have failed to deliver on their promise to fund councils to do whatever is necessary to get communities through this pandemic. That is another issue that I hope the Secretary of State will deal with.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Steve Reed

    I would like to make a little progress, because an awful lot of Members—not just in the Chamber, but elsewhere—would like to contribute to the debate.

    The Secretary of State admitted last week that he was fully aware that his decision helped Mr Desmond avoid these charges. Why was it so important that this decision was rushed through on 14 January rather than, say, a day later or a week later? He has given no compelling reason for that, so suspicion arises that he was trying to do favours for a Conservative party donor.

    The Secretary of State’s own advisers from his Department believed the scheme was viable with the higher level of affordable housing, so on what specific grounds did he overrule professionals with relevant experience that far outweighs his own? Without a credible answer, the suspicion arises once again that the Secretary of State was bending over backwards to do favours for his billionaire dinner date.

    Barely two weeks after the Secretary of State forced the scheme through, in the teeth of opposition from his own advisers and the local council, the beneficiary, Mr Desmond, made a donation to the Conservative party—what an astonishing coincidence! The Secretary of State can see, as we all can, how that looks: cash for favours—mates’ rates on taxes for Tories that everyone else has to pay in full. Do this Government really believe that taxes are just for the little people? No one will believe a word they say on levelling up until the Secretary of State levels with the British people over why he helped a billionaire dodge millions of pounds in tax after they enjoyed dinner together at an exclusive Conservative party fundraising event.

    David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)

    Has the hon. Gentleman considered that the urgency partly arose from the fact that the period for determination of the application had expired in November 2018? The opportunity of these valuable homes had already been waiting more than a year for a decision in the hands of Labour Tower Hamlets Council.

    Steve Reed

    The issue in question is not that the Secretary of State called the planning decision in; it is what he did after he had called it in—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State will have a chance to respond. It is what happened when he took the determination, not the fact that he was taking it.

    Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)

    I understand that the Secretary of State has acknowledged the appearance of bias. My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. If, in fact, the Secretary of State is entirely innocent of everything that has been suggested, there is a simple way for this to be resolved, which is for him to provide complete transparency. If only he showed the documents, he could prove his own innocence, and we could all get on to other matters.

    Steve Reed

    I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. There is, of course, a very simple way for the Secretary of State to show that he did absolutely nothing wrong—it really could not be more straightforward. Officials in his Department will have kept meticulous records of the entire process: how and when he notified them about his dinner with Mr Desmond, and whether he told them that he had viewed the video; whether they advised him to recuse himself, and whether he overruled them; why he needed to take the decision in a way that helped Mr Desmond cut his tax bill; and what advice he received about the viability of the scheme with a higher level of affordable housing. It is all there. If he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear. He can just publish it, and I urge him to do that.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    I think the hon. Gentleman is unintentionally risking the reputation of this House. Does he not accept the position that I stated earlier? It is not a question of saving the developer up to £50 million. As the inspector himself admitted, it is simply that a commensurate amount of money would have been reduced from the allocation of affordable housing. That is what would have happened. It was not going into the back pocket of the developer. The hon. Gentleman must accept that, or he risks the reputation of this House.

    Steve Reed

    The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to repeat the same point: let us see the documentation from the Department and the advice that was given to the Secretary of State—openly, transparently, for everybody to see—and then we will know exactly whether what happened was in breach of the ministerial code of conduct and the planning code.

    Instead of being open and transparent, the Secretary of State has gone to great lengths to keep the documentation secret. Tower Hamlets Council took out a judicial review of his decision and was rewarded with a high-handed and arrogant letter from the Department accusing it of going on a fishing expedition, until someone realised that a judicial review would require the Secretary of State to release all the documentation and correspondence about the decision in open court for everyone to see. He then took an extraordinary step. Suddenly that “fishing expedition” did not look quite so speculative, because he quashed his own decision and declared it to be unlawful because of apparent bias. That is explosive. A leading planning barrister says that it is without precedent and raises questions about the integrity of the entire planning system. That prompts the question of what in the documentation is so embarrassing and so bad that it is better to admit taking a biased and unlawful decision than to publish the documents in open court.

    There is only one way to clear this up. Let us see the documents. Let us see that there was no breach of ministerial code. If the Secretary of State continues to refuse, let us have a full investigation by the Cabinet Secretary. Without it, there can be no trust in the Secretary of State or the planning system over which he presides. Without that trust, who on earth will believe that the Secretary of State has the credibility to take the numerous decisions that he makes every day, let alone reform the entire planning system, as he has said he wants to do?

    Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that we do not need a detailed chronology or to go over the books with a fine-toothed comb to realise that this is redolent of the stench of sleaze? It brought down the Major Government. The suggestion of unfair advantage to donors or supporters is sleaze writ large. The wheels are coming off this oven-ready Government.

    Steve Reed

    I very much hope that the Secretary of State will agree to publish the documentation, because if he is right, it will lay to rest the concerns that my hon. Friend has shared.

    Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)

    Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in my experience, every letter that emanates from the Department goes with the consent of officials? Ministers cannot write in a personal capacity. My experience of those officials is that they are expert and meticulous. It is important to reflect that in the debate. Does he also accept that when an application is called in for non-determination, there is, for obvious reasons, pressure to move quickly to determine it? Does he accept that point at least?

    Steve Reed

    I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in those matters, and of course there may well have been a need to move at speed. It is not so much the speed I am concerned about as what happened during that timeframe.

    Westferry is not the only example of that kind of behaviour by the Secretary of State. Similar allegations were reported yesterday in The Times about a case in Surrey. There are fresh allegations just today that when Westminster City Council’s planning officers twice recommended refusal of the Secretary of State’s plans to refurbish his London home, Conservative councillors called it in and overruled their own officials for him, but, to my knowledge, nothing about that relationship was disclosed in any register of interests.

    Westferry is not a one-off. It is part of a pattern of behaviour, and the questions do not stop with the Secretary of State. They reach right into No. 10 Downing Street to the Prime Minister. In his final days as Mayor of London, the Prime Minister pushed through an earlier version of the same development. He was photographed at numerous convivial meetings with Mr Desmond, but No. 10 has refused to answer perfectly legitimate questions about whether and how often the Prime Minister has met Mr Desmond since he took office and whether they discussed the scheme. We need to know.

    Will the Secretary of State tell us whether any other Ministers or their officials contacted him about the scheme before he took his unlawful decision? Did he disclose those contacts to his officials as he is required to do? Honesty is the best disinfectant for the very bad smell that hangs around this decision. Today, the credibility of the planning system and of this Secretary of State hangs in the balance. We cannot allow the planning system to be auctioned off at Conservative party fundraising dinners. There cannot be one rule for the Conservatives and their billionaire donors, and another rule for everyone else. So I say to the Secretary of State: it is time to come clean. Publish the documents. Let us see what he was really up to and let us see if we are staring into a new era of Tory sleaze.

  • Steve Reed – 2020 Comments on Westferry Scandal

    Steve Reed – 2020 Comments on Westferry Scandal

    Below is the text of the comments made by Steve Reed, the Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, on 24 June 2020.

    These explosive new revelations show clear discrepancies between what the Secretary of State told the House of Commons and what appears in the official documents.

    The documents clearly show that Mr Jenrick did not notify officials immediately after his meeting with Mr Desmond; rather than “closing down” the discussion as he claims, he initiated contact with Mr Desmond by text message the following day; and it confirms that he rushed through the decision specifically to help the developer avoid a £30-50m levy payable to the local council for infrastructure in one of the poorest local authorities in England.

    The Housing Secretary needs to come to the House to explain these discrepancies as a matter of urgency: the public must be reassured that there is not one rule for the Conservatives and their wealthy donors and another rule for everyone else.

  • Pete Wishart – 2020 Speech on Independent Complaints

    Pete Wishart – 2020 Speech on Independent Complaints

    Below is the text of the speech made by Pete Wishart, the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 23 June 2020.

    It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I have had the great privilege of having served in all the various ICGS working groups since their inception, and it is particularly good to be here today to say a few remarks on behalf of the House of Commons Commission on what hopefully will be the conclusion and the implementation of all the recommendations that have been made to the ICGS.

    As I look around the Chamber today, I can see several colleagues who have served on the various incarnations of the working group, and I pay tribute to them for their contribution and dedication. In particular, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), whose vision, leadership and guidance at the inception of all this helped to guide us through this process, so I thank her for her contribution today.

    Today, we are here to bring the ICGS in line with the third recommendation of Dame Laura Cox. It is worth briefly reminding ourselves of what Dame Laura Cox actually said about this House in her most damning report and the litany of issues that she uncovered. She talked of an

    “excessively hierarchical, ‘command and control’ and deferential culture, which has no place in any organisation in the 21st century.”

    That is what Dame Laura said.

    It is two years since Dame Laura Cox presented her report to the House. It was in October 2018 that the Commission overwhelmingly agreed to all three of her recommendations. We have heard that the first two have been implemented. One was, of course, the behaviour code, which has been put in place. The second was looking at historical cases, and today we are considering the third recommendation. Let us just remind ourselves what that is. It is to put in place the mechanism whereby complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment brought by House staff against Members of Parliament would be an entirely independent process in which Members of Parliament will play no part. For this to happen, the Commission set up a working group to put together how we should respond to this and to bring this House in line with that recommendation. That was met with the Commission’s unanimous agreement to establish the independent expert panel to replace the Committee on Standards in considering cases brought under the ICGS.

    At our last meeting of the Commission, we confirmed our support for the implementation of the independent expert panel, and we asked for this matter to be brought before the House. The new panel will determine sanction in cases where the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does not have the power to invoke sanctions. As we have heard, this could include the suspension or expulsion of a Member of Parliament. These serious cases will be referred to the panel and will be considered ​by a sub-panel of three independent experts, supported by specialist advice. When decided and concluded, a Member of the House of Commons Commission, probably me, will move a motion to allow the House to implement the sanction determined by the IEP. Lastly, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Commission agreed that the House would be asked to consider whether there should be a time-limited debate in these circumstances, and that is where we are today, with the motions in the name of the Leader of the House.

    The motions accurately reflect the considerations of the House of Commons Commission, and its members are pretty much in line and in step with what Dame Laura Cox expects in the implementation of her third recommendation. That is, of course, until we get to paragraph D(1) in motion 5, where the Leader of the House makes that provision for the debate. If it is helpful to the House, what the Commission decided in our consideration of this issue was that we would let the House decide whether it wanted a debate. I think the expectation was that a couple of motions would be brought by the Leader of the House, which would give us flexibility in our options. Instead, we have this one determination of the Leader of the House, which is that we are now invited to a yes or no. I do not think that I am giving away any secrets, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say that the Commission was almost split down the middle when we were considering this matter, and that was why we felt it was appropriate that the House should decide and determine this.

    My view as a Member of the House who has been involved in the ICGS for the past two and a half years is that what the Leader of the House suggests in paragraph D(1) breaks practically every principle and the whole spirit of the third Cox recommendation. It is little wonder that there is profound disappointment among House staff today. Such are the concerns that Dame Laura herself has felt the need to respond to some of the representations from staff. She notes the fears that a debate could result in a complainant’s confidentiality being compromised and speaks of

    “the chilling effect that this will undoubtedly have on complainants reporting cases of harassment or bullying”.

    There are real concerns that MPs will debate the findings of an independent judgment on one of their colleagues while protected by privilege, with staff having no equivalent platform. That cannot be right.

    The Leader of the House seeks to assure us with motion 6, but we cannot escape the overwhelming conclusion that Members and complainants could be identified inadvertently in a debate. Colleagues and friends of somebody who has been complained against will feel the temptation to get up there and defend them.

    Mr Carmichael

    The hon. Gentleman is drilling down into an important part of the issue, which is about procedural fairness. It goes to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Once we got into a debate, it is inevitable that we would get into the merits of the issue; how, procedurally, could we expect not to?

    Pete Wishart

    I think that concern has been expressed by the House staff after looking at the motions presented by the Leader of the House today.​

    As was mentioned by the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House, the House should make the ultimate determination about the expulsion or suspension of a Member of Parliament. That is right, but it should not be done through a debate. That is why I will be supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and I really hope that the rest of the House will too.

    It is disappointing that this little issue has presented itself after we have come all this way with full agreement, full consensus and the involvement of the House staff, and are just at the point of doing this. I say to the House: stick with the principles of Laura Cox and support the amendment this evening.

  • Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2020 Speech on Independent Complaints

    Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2020 Speech on Independent Complaints

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House of Commons, on 23 June 2020.

    This is a dreadful position for us to be in as a House. The behaviour of a small number of Members of Parliament over years and decades has disgraced and shamed our parliamentary democracy, of which I, and many hon. Members, are so proud. Our ancient right that we should look after our own affairs is to be sacrificed, because the importance of restoring the trust of the British people in our system makes that the right thing to do. How we treat each other matters at all times in all places, but particularly in Parliament. It matters wherever people work together, for everyone should be able to perform their roles in an atmosphere of courtesy and respect, and it most certainly matters in the Palace of Westminster.

    There are about 13,000 passholders with access to the parliamentary estate. In recent years, we have been trying hard to create the kind of culture that prioritises having a safe working place where people are afforded respect and which enables them to speak out and be confident that they will be listened to. My predecessors, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), made an enormous contribution to that effort by achieving cross-party agreement for the establishment of an Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. That we had to do so is an indication of how far some in this institution had failed and had not lived up to the standards required of them.

    The ICGS has already been approached by a large number of people, receiving 201 calls and emails in the first quarter of this year alone from those who feel that they have faced bullying, harassment or sexual harassment. However, there are some complaints that have not yet come forward because of the concerns of the complainants that Members continue to play a role in the sanctions process. This is where we have the greatest challenge in restoring trust: not just between us and voters, but between us and those who work in this place.

    The approach I am putting forward today is motivated by supporting those who need to make complaints and allows for the restoration, I hope, of our reputation. Since becoming Leader of the House, I have spoken to a number of complainants and potential complainants about the progress made so far. Every conversation I have had has left me profoundly moved and, in some cases, shocked and appalled by some of the things that have happened to people in this House, some of which seem to me to reach the threshold of criminal activity. This place, which ought to be the epitome of good behaviour, has been besmirched by that. I am therefore determined to do more to continue the momentum for sustained culture change that was begun in the previous Parliament.

    I, of all people, cannot pretend that I like abandoning some of the ancient responsibilities and rights of Parliament, but it is our fault that we have to do this and so it is right to change. There is a problem of the power dynamic which can occur wherever those in a position of influence assume that they are able to act without consequences, so it is right that we seek to change the culture in order to challenge that assumption. In Westminster, we have introduced a behavioural code; established the “Valuing Everyone” training; replaced the Respect and Valuing Others policy with the ICGS; and extended the scheme to include historic allegations of some former members of the parliamentary community. The latter two steps ​were the result of Dame Laura Cox’s recommendations made in her report on the treatment of House staff. Her third recommendation, however, remains outstanding: that Members of Parliament should no longer be able to determine the sanctions imposed.

    It is no coincidence that that outstanding recommendation is by some distance the most constitutionally challenging and the most significant, too. Under our current arrangements, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has the power to determine cases and impose sanctions up to a certain level of severity. Until now, more serious cases, including suspension and expulsion from the House, have been for the Committee on Standards to determine. In February, the House of Commons Commission agreed its preferred option of those presented by the staff team on a means of changing that: that there be an independent chair and seven expert panel members, none of whom will be MPs. The panel should be empowered to determine ICGS cases, decide on sanctions, and hear appeals by either party against the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ conclusions. That proposal has been the subject of consultation over recent months and Dame Laura Cox herself was among those who supported that approach.

    While I am taking steps to strengthen it further, I am supportive of the House of Commons Commission’s proposed solution overall. Placing decisions of this kind in the hands of an independent expert panel is a fundamental break with the past that reflects our continuing efforts to make Parliament a better place to work.

    Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)

    I wholeheartedly welcome the momentum for having a system that is fair and transparent. The Leader of the House referred to the constitutional significance of the creation of this new independent body. Is he aware of an independent body in any part of the UK with such sweeping disciplinary powers over its members that is not justiciable? My concern is that if an accusation is made against Members, they will not have any recourse to a court of law, whereas if an accusation of bullying against a member of House staff or Members’ staff is upheld by the panel, they would have recourse to a court of law or an employment tribunal.

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    The question of parliamentary privilege applying to the ICGS is one that will have to be determined by a court, and it is not entirely clear whether they would be covered by the article 9 rights. The reason we have to have a final vote in this House is that there is no court outside Parliament that can question the proceedings in Parliament. That is at the heart of the constitutional dilemma that we have been facing. It is also why we are making this fundamental break with the past.

    In allowing an independent body to take such action we are making a really important constitutional change. We are doing this—and we are right to do this—because of the way that some Members have behaved, and we have to stop that happening in the future. As Leader of the House, I am ashamed when people come to see me and tell me what they have suffered; I am appalled at the stories they tell me and shocked sometimes that they have not been to the police about them when they are so awful. That is why we have to have this change, which hits at the heart of our constitution. The House knows that I have an admiration and affection for our constitution that does not seek to change it lightly.​
    Let me come to the panel and the level of member that we expect. The panel’s members must bring significant expertise to the process, and we will expect it to be led by somebody who has a standing equivalent to that of a High Court judge. It must also include knowledge of human resources, employment law, bullying and harassment cases and sexual harassment cases. In a serious case, three of the independent experts would consider the sanction in the light of the report and recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. A further three would act as an appeal panel if necessary.

    In cases considered by the panel that propose sanctions requiring action by the House, the panel would report directly to the House. At that stage, a motion would be moved by a member of the House of Commons Commission to implement the sanction, and it is at this stage where we find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, it is constitutionally proper that a decision of this magnitude—the expulsion or suspension of a Member—can only be taken by the House as a whole. It is removing, in effect, albeit temporarily, the democratic representation of tens of thousands of people, and we can only take away that democratic representation by a motion of this House. It does not seem right that a decision that could overturn the result of an election in a constituency could be taken by unelected individuals.

    Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)

    All bullying is horrible and goes against traditional good manners; we all accept that. I hope that the Leader of the House will emphasise the point that he just made: the fundamental difference between Members of Parliament and all other staff members is that we are elected by the people. We are responsible to the people, and the people must have the final say on whether we come here in the first place, when we leave and how we leave. That is very important. However distinguished an independent panel, only the people have the final say.

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    My right hon. Friend makes a crucial point: we are elected by the people, and we are answerable to them. That is why I support the principle that only the House of Commons holds the authority to make the decision to suspend or expel.

    Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)

    The Leader of the House is making an excellent speech. To pick up on the previous intervention, we may be democratically elected, but we are also employers, and we have a duty of care to the people we employ. Does he agree that that is equally important?

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    It is of fundamental importance, and I say again that I have had people come to see me who have been treated in a way that makes my skin crawl. You cannot believe that senior people would have behaved to people subordinate to them in such a way in any workplace, let alone in the House of Commons, which ought to be a model of good behaviour. That is why we have to have the counterbalancing bit, but we cannot give MPs an opportunity to delve into the personal details of a case and try it effectively a second time. The other place offers a cautionary tale in this regard.

    Having listened carefully to views expressed to me in recent days, I am proposing that we establish a convention that the Commission member moving the motion will ​do so formally. This means the expectation will be that there will be no detailed debate, while maintaining the constitutional right to debate. In addition, I am asking the House explicitly to restrict what it is permissible to refer to during any further proceedings on severe ICGS cases in the Chamber.

    To that end, motion 6, in my name, emulates the sub judice resolution, which the House carefully and successfully observes to avoid prejudicing any current criminal proceedings and which is enforced from the Chair. The motion sets out that the names of any complainants may not be referred to. The details of any investigations or specific matters considered by a sub-panel of the independent experts panel, in any motion, debate or question brought to the House, may not be referred to. Furthermore, the findings and determination of sanctions of a sub-panel may not be brought into question. The motion will ensure that any debate that does occur, which is something of a misnomer in this instance, is merely a short, factual exposition of the process, not the circumstances involved.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I seek some clarification because I have been looking through the amendments that have been tabled, and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has tabled what I believe is an excellent amendment, which would address this issue. Is the intention to bring that forward?

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)

    Order. That amendment has not been selected.

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I turn to amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) , who has been very helpful in this process and in the discussions I have had with him. I understand that some Members remain sceptical about the approach that I have set out and whether it is the right one, and this amendment seeks to remove entirely any possibility for debate in these circumstances. I am not entirely unsympathetic to this view, because our priority is to restore confidence in the ability of the House to achieve the standards that are reasonably expected of us and to ensure that people making complaints, some of whom, as I have said, have been treated in the most appalling way, feel that the system will not add greater pain to that which they have already suffered.

    However, it is my view that it would be wrong for the Government to have tabled a motion that denied the House the opportunity to consider a matter of this gravity. It should be for the House, not for Ministers, to decide that they wish to curtail the ability of Members to conduct debate. The House can set its procedures as it wishes, but it would not be constitutionally right for the Executive to seek to limit free speech in this House.

    I believe that this curtailment can be avoided and have set out how we can meet our constitutional requirements, while reassuring those wishing to access the ICGS who have not yet done so that they will have their confidential information preserved and protected. But if the House agrees to this amendment, it will willingly and knowingly have taken this approach, and in those circumstances, motion 6 will not be moved.

    While the amendments tabled today differ in terms of the means, I think we are all entirely united in the ends, signalling our collective determination to make a break ​with the past. Above all, this is a matter for the House, which this House must get right to show that we are genuinely committed to change.

    Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

    The Leader of the House has taken us very deftly through the constitutional and procedural aspects, but there is a further test that I think the House needs to apply: whether the outcome of the decisions that we make will make it more or less likely that the people whom he has met and whose complaints he has heard will have confidence in the system to see it through to a conclusion. I suggest gently that that is why the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is a sensible one.

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I believe that the proposal that the Government have put before the House balances the constitutional needs and the protection of the individual complainants, but I make no criticism of those who have come to a different conclusion. I absolutely share his concern not only that we must ensure that people are not discouraged, but that we must all—in our own way, when we can and when it comes to us—encourage people to use these systems, because they are there to protect people who are vulnerable. That is very important.

    Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)

    The tone of this debate is in the right direction, but I really do have concerns about a bully pulpit being used in this Chamber. Even if people are not named, there will be gossip and innuendo about who is being referred to. I hate to refer to this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but a predecessor of Mr Speaker, in a published book, named Members of this House. If people of position and power do that, what confidence will people have if we still have an open debate in this Chamber, even if people cannot be named?

    Mr Rees-Mogg

    The hon. Lady makes a very fair point. I think the answer is that not having a debate in this Chamber at the end of the process, subject to very strict rules, does not mean that people may not write books saying things that they should not say or that they may not use other opportunities within parliamentary privilege. It is the question of constraining what can be done within parliamentary privilege that is essential, which is why I believe that something that is controlled and clearly set out in the rules is, on balance, preferable to trying to prevent this House from debating. However, I understand that others come to a different conclusion on what is a serious level of constitutional change because of past behaviour that has besmirched the name of this House and of politics and politicians generally.

    Taken together, the provisions have the effect of acting decisively to uphold the spirit of our efforts towards culture change, while respecting the traditions and requirements of our parliamentary democracy. They aim to build the confidence of complainants by ensuring that these matters will be treated with the sensitivity and professionalism that they deserve. We simply have to give people who feel that they have been abused the confidence that they need to come forward. Adopting Dame Laura Cox’s recommendation by establishing the independent panel of experts will help us to do that. I commend the motions to the House.

  • Jonathan Gullis – 2020 Speech on Desecration of War Memorials

    Jonathan Gullis – 2020 Speech on Desecration of War Memorials

    Below is the text of the speech made by Jonathan Gullis, the Conservative MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, in the House of Commons on 23 June 2020.

    I beg to move

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create the offence of desecrating a war memorial; and for connected purposes.

    I find myself in the unique position of standing here presenting this Bill, with the Government in support of the cause and aims behind bringing such legislation before the House. It is the week of Armed Forces Day, and I say to all our servicemen and women: I salute you.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and I have had constructive discussions with our right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the potential for this Bill to be put into statute. Such a Bill should not be contentious, and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, my “co-sponsor” of the Bill, are delighted to have support from across the House for our ambitions.

    I stress that this Bill should not be perceived as a knee-jerk reaction to recent events, as some in the media have suggested. Back in 2009-10, the former hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, David Burrowes, introduced a similar Bill, with the same intention of protecting our war memorials. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and I wish to place on record our thanks to him for his efforts, and for having reached out to us and thrown his full support behind our work. We also wish to thank Lewis Fielder and James Clark, members of Conservative Friends of the Armed Forces, for their efforts in researching, drafting and aiding my hon. Friend and I in putting this Bill to the House.

    Every war memorial in every village, every town and every city across our country is sacred and serves to remind us of the immeasurable gratitude that we must afford to our armed forces, both past and present. The passage of time always presents the danger of dimmed collective recollections. Let us not forget the sacrifice and bravery of those who paid the ultimate price: young men and women who gave up their futures, loves, lives and dreams to ensure that the freedoms they once knew were protected from tyranny—for us, the unborn generations, who now sit idly by as monuments dedicated to their eternal memory are desecrated. I will not sit idly by, and neither will I be silent.

    A lack of comprehensive reporting on vandalism of this nature means that it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of incidents each year, although the War Memorials Trust does an excellent job of documenting such incidents. It reports that seven memorials have suffered from criminal activity since April, including the Cenotaph in Whitehall which has been graffitied and climbed on, and recently the Union Flag was nearly set alight. In 2017, a woman was arrested for urinating on a war memorial in Essex for the second time. During her arrest she became abusive towards emergency workers, and was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for the first count of outraging public decency, three months for the second count, and three months for assault and abusive language. How that punishment fits the crime, I do not know.​

    The Bomber Command Memorial in Green Park has been attacked four times since Her Majesty opened it in 2012. In 2013, it was desecrated with graffiti that referenced the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. The perpetrator was sentenced to just 12 weeks’ imprisonment. Those who vandalise and abuse these monuments do not have the capacity to comprehend the strength, courage and bravery that it must have taken for, in this case, teenage boys to overcome the terror of midnight missions across occupied Europe in a tin can thousands of feet in the sky. More than 50,000 British, American, Canadian and Commonwealth young men lost their lives under Bomber Command to preserve and protect the liberties of democracy. Had the allied forces not been successful in their mission, let us make no mistake: we would be living under the tyranny of totalitarian, fascist insanity.

    The price of war is immeasurably high. I saw that first hand when a young man from Stratford-upon-Avon, Private Conrad Lewis, lost his life in Afghanistan back in 2011. The pain felt by friends and the community stays with me to this day. Those of us who value freedom of thought, speech and expression know that we can never repay the debt we owe to these men and women; all we can do is immortalise their memory, and display our gratitude for their sacrifice.

    Memorials stand in great, solemn, eternal remembrance of the glorious dead. We cannot bring back those lives, or erase the grief of families and communities, but the least we can do is ensure that memorials are adequately protected, and punish those who would deface, urinate on, spit on, defile, or graffiti them. Such actions, which have included swastikas spray-painted on statues, and Nazi salutes in 2020 before the Cenotaph, are the price we pay for ignorance and inaction.

    A blessed bond is formed between our present and our past through memorials. We see ourselves in the names and images of our fallen heroes, and perhaps we pause to reflect whether we would have had their courage and their nerves of steel in the face of evil itself.

    My great-great-uncle Allan Gullis, who still lives today, is a D-day veteran. I could not possibly speculate whether I would have had the sheer guts and bulldog spirit that he and his brothers in arms embody so fully, but the least that I can do is stand before the House today and try to secure the protection of their memory. My grandfather, Terrence Gullis, served in the Royal Marines during the Suez canal crisis, and my grandfather on my mother’s side, William Beacham, served in the RAF, undertaking his national service in Egypt. It is an honour to have such brave and committed men in my family. I would have liked to follow in the footsteps of those heroes but, alas, due to deafness in one ear, it was not my destiny.

    I am delighted, however, to represent the great town of Kidsgrove, where the Royal British Legion, on its own initiative, has set up a beautiful war memorial garden that is used every November to lay wreaths and remember our fallen. It has been an undoubted pleasure to attend the veterans breakfast club in Smallthorne, run by Martyn Hunt and Paul Horton, which serves all veterans across Stoke-on-Trent as a way of bringing our heroes together to share their stories and lend support to one another. Dotted across this country are extraordinary examples of individuals and community groups banding ​together to honour the dead. Every year, as I don my poppy, it brings me a great sense of pride and joy to see so many others doing the same.

    I am asking the House to do the respectable thing—the right thing—and back this Bill to create an explicit offence, distinguishable from damage to public property. Let us join our friends in Australia, the United States and Canada, and pay the respect that we owe to those who died in the freedom fight against tyranny. Although there is provision in existing legislation to hold criminals to account for damage to property, and offenders have been successfully prosecuted, relatively few are held to account for the severity of the aggravating circumstances that come with criminally damaging something as sacred to the nation as war memorials.

    In addition to the designation of a specific offence relating to unlawful damage to a war memorial, the Bill proposes the exemption of damage to war memorials from the £5,000 damages threshold required under the Criminal Damage Act 1971; the removal of a maximum fine in favour of an unlimited fine; and the establishment of a maximum custodial sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. Despite some media reports, we are not calling for all offences to be met with 10 years’ imprisonment; we are enabling our judiciary to use their discretion over whether the offence is worthy of being moved to a Crown court, without the £5,000 threshold barrier blocking its way.

    Finally, I take the opportunity to praise my partner in this proposal, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. He has an outstanding record as a public servant, with 27 years of military service under his belt. In this House, he serves as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, and he remains unrivalled in his passion for veterans, the Commonwealth and remembrance. It is a privilege to know him and work with him as a fellow member of the 2019 intake. My hon. Friend will perhaps be blushing at such unreserved praise, but it is certain that he is cut from the same cloth as those whose memories I stand here advocating to protect and preserve. I thank him wholeheartedly for his service and for his help in laying the Bill before the House.

    I want to see the deterrence of criminal damage to the memory of our glorious dead. I hope that the House will support me in that endeavour.

  • Joanna Cherry – 2020 Speech on the Windrush Compensation Scheme

    Joanna Cherry – 2020 Speech on the Windrush Compensation Scheme

    Below is the text of the speech made by Joanna Cherry, the SNP MP for Edinburgh South West, in the House of Commons on 23 June 2020.

    The Windrush scandal brought shame on the United Kingdom and shame on the Conservative Government, who caused it to happen. Make no mistake about it, Mr Deputy Speaker, what happened was a direct result of the hostile environment policy. The Government must know that and yet, before dealing with Wendy Williams’ recommendations, they have pressed ahead with plans to extend the reach of the hostile environment policy to European Union citizens in the immigration Bill.

    I am concerned that, in today’s statement, the Home Secretary does not unequivocally commit to the sort of root and branch review of the hostile environment policy recommended by the lessons learned review. It is all very well to agree that black lives matter, but actions speak louder than words, and the reality is that many of this Government’s immigration policies continue to have disproportionate impacts on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. If the Home Secretary does not carry out a root and branch review of the hostile environment policy, this will continue.

    The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has correctly identified that policies such as the right-to-rent scheme, which outsource the enforcement of immigration control to untrained members of the public, cannot be adequately reformed in such a way as to avoid the sort of discrimination that we have seen result. It is these policies that have resulted in real suffering for people from the Windrush generation and beyond, with people losing their jobs, unable to rent their homes and denied hospital treatment, including for serious diseases such as cancer.

    Can the Home Secretary tell us, in direct terms, that she will be carrying out the review of the hostile environment that was recommended by Wendy Williams? Wendy Williams said that the review should approach the measures of the hostile environment individually and cumulatively and demonstrate a plan to mitigate any particular cohorts impacted. She said that the review ​must be carried out with reference to equality law and the public sector equality duty. There have been calls for the right-to-rent scheme to be paused in the meantime and for the Government to consider pausing all other hostile environment measures until their effectiveness and impact can be evidenced. Will the Home Secretary state unequivocally for the record that this review of the hostile environment policy will happen, and will she give us a timescale today? Will she tell us whether the measures, such as the right-to-rent scheme, will be paused pending the outcome of the hostile environment policy? Finally, if assisting victims of the Windrush scandal is so complicated, why not extend legal aid to the lawyers who are trying to help them? That would be far more effective than inviting Members of Parliament into the Home Office.