UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Caroline Nokes – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Rural Broadband

    Caroline Nokes – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Rural Broadband

    The parliamentary question asked by Caroline Nokes, the Conservative MP for Romsey and Southampton North, in the House of Commons on 1 December 2022.

    Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)

    What steps her Department is taking to expand broadband coverage in rural areas.

    The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)

    We are investing £5 billion through Project Gigabit to deliver lightning-fast, reliable broadband to hard-to-reach areas across the UK, and we are making great progress, having already launched procurements with a value of £780 million. Today, we announced the award of a new £108-million contract to connect up to 60,000 homes and businesses across Cumbria with the fastest broadband speeds. We are also boosting our voucher scheme: we have increased the value of the vouchers so that people can apply for as much as £4,500 towards the cost of installing gigabit-capable broadband in rural and particularly hard-to-reach areas.

    Caroline Nokes

    I assure the Minister that the people of Nether Wallop, Over Wallop and Barton Stacey do not feel that Project Gigabit is delivering for them. They have seen changed criteria; an inability to split postcodes, which is difficult when they are on a county boundary; delays in the processing of their applications; and then being told that they will not be able to reapply until 2023, because the project will still not be procured for those areas. They want answers and delivery, not the news that the project is delivering in Cumbria.

    Julia Lopez

    I thank my right hon. Friend, although I cannot agree with her on the importance of Cumbria, which is one of the hardest to reach areas of our country. That we are taking that area as one of our first shows just how much we care about narrowing the digital divide. More than 95% of premises in my right hon. Friend’s constituency now have superfast broadband, which is up 55% over the past 12 years. During the same period, gigabit-capable coverage has risen from 0% to 71% in her constituency. I appreciate that particular villages and parts of people’s constituencies do not have the coverage they need, and that is why we are significantly boosting the voucher scheme. We have launched two of our procurements in areas that cover my right hon. Friend’s constituency in Hampshire. I also host regular Building Digital UK drop-ins for colleagues—I hosted one yesterday—and if she would like to come along and speak directly to BDUK officials, we shall look into the villages affected.

  • Sarah Olney – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights

    Sarah Olney – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Intellectual Property Rights

    The parliamentary question asked by Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, in the House of Commons on 1 December 2022.

    Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)

    What assessment she has made of the potential impact of artificial intelligence on intellectual property rights for performers and creative workers.

    The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)

    The recent Intellectual Property Office consultation on artificial intelligence and intellectual property sought evidence and views on text and data mining. A response was published in June. We recognise that the creative industries have significant concerns about the potential impacts of the TDM proposal and as a result, we are reflecting on whether to progress it in its current form. The IPO will be engaging with interested parties over the coming months to help to inform the Government’s thinking and we will set out the next steps in due course.

    Sarah Olney

    It was encouraging to hear the Minister tell the Lords Communications and Digital Committee last week that she is confident that the text and data mining proposal will not go ahead. That has been warmly welcomed by the creative industries, which depend heavily on intellectual property rights for their income stream. What steps will the Minister be taking to ensure that any revised proposals to promote AI do not cause economic harm to the creative industries? Will she provide an update on her conversations with the Intellectual Property Office, including the detail of its plans to extend the consultation on the proposal?

    Julia Lopez

    I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue and speaking on behalf of the creative industries; IP is the lifeblood of many of those industries. As I said in the Lords Committee, I am not convinced of the value of the proposal. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), and I met the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who has responsibility for the Intellectual Property Office. As I mentioned, he is extending the consultation on this and we will be talking to him in the meantime. We hope to provide further details as soon as we can.

  • Mike Freer – 2022 Speech on the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review

    Mike Freer – 2022 Speech on the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review

    The speech made by Mike Freer, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 30 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) for securing the debate; I know how much time and personal effort she put into this topic when in Government. I welcome the focus that she is continuing to create on what I know is an important issue.

    This is not an area normally in my portfolio. I put on the record that I cannot possibly imagine the distress and trauma of the families of Ellie Gould and Poppy Devey Waterhouse, who were murdered in such awful circumstances. I can only commend their mothers for the ongoing campaigning that they are doing in relation to this issue. I know that colleagues who are taking part in the debate, and from across the House, will continue to support their campaign, and will have the families in their thoughts and prayers as they deal with the loss of a loved one.

    Throughout the debate I have listened to the argument for reform of sentencing in cases of domestic homicide, which has been so eloquently explained. That is why the Government commissioned the review that we received in June and are now assessing. People are saying, “You have had the review now nearly six months—can’t you just get on with it?” But it is important that we get it right. It is tempting to rush, and I know that there is always a desire in such distressing circumstances to be seen to be acting. But in this place we quite often see the impact and consequences of acting without reflecting. I want to ensure that the response to the review is measured, and takes onboard the recommendations and factors that we need to assess.

    I take this opportunity to publicly express my thanks to Clare Wade KC, the independent expert appointed to undertake the review. Ms Wade was the lead counsel in the high-profile case of Sally Challen, and has brought her unparalleled expertise to the complex nature of this piece of work. As has been pointed out, the published terms of reference for the review stated that the final report would be submitted to the Secretary of State for Justice by the end of last year. The report was received in June, and I appreciate that the delay, along with the changes in Government, will have been frustrating for all of those involved and concerned, and who want to see action.

    I can give my full assurance that the Secretary of State and I are in the process of carefully considering all of the recommendations made in Clare Wade’s review. The topic is not only extremely important but complex and challenging; as I said earlier, it is important we get it right. Changing the law on sentencing for murder can have profound consequences, so it is something that we must do properly and consider very carefully, to avoid any unintended impacts. The matter has the full attention of the Secretary of State and the ministerial team, and I look forward to updating Parliament in due course with more detail on the review, its recommendations and how the Government will respond to them.

    On my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch’s question about the private Member’s Bill that has called for a minimum sentence to be imposed on rough sex manslaughter, the Government are clear that there is no such defence in law as the “rough sex defence”. We clarified that position in statutory form in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The Government are aware that there are rising concerns about seemingly low sentences given in some cases involving death, especially when there is evidence to suggest that there may have previously been consent between the parties for that type of behaviour.

    Minimum sentences are rare in England and Wales. They tend to be used for repeat offences, or offences that are straightforward in definition, such as knife possession. Manslaughter offences cover a wide range of behaviours and circumstances. It is right that the courts have the full range of disposals available.

    Rachel Maclean

    I thank the Minister for the detail and commitment that he has shown to this process. I want to lodge one thought with him: he mentioned that courts need to take account of evidence that the parties had engaged in such activity within the rough sex domain, as we have already discussed. I make the point that the woman who was part of that is now dead. There is no evidence that she could give; she is no longer with us. I want the Minister to take that away and consider it when he comes to his final conclusion.

    Mike Freer

    My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Clearly, it is not always possible to know exactly what those who have no voice because they are no longer with us have said or consented to in the past. That is an important point, which will be reflected in our response.

    The issue of rough-sex manslaughter will be a major consideration in our response to the independent domestic homicide sentencing review. Today, I heard the calls for reform to ensure that sentences are fit for purpose and commensurate with the crime. The Government are committed absolutely to that endeavour, and the domestic homicide sentencing review builds on significant action that we have taken already.

    The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, passed earlier this year, ensures that those convicted of some of the most serious sexual and violent crimes, such as rape, manslaughter and attempted murder, will spend a longer proportion of their sentence in prison, protecting the public and giving victims the confidence that justice has been served. In the Act, we also took swift action to raise the starting point for murder for older children and young adults, to ensure that sentences in such cases reflect the seriousness of the crime and the age of the perpetrator. That was in part in response to the case of Ellie Gould, mentioned today, who was murdered by her 17-year-old ex-partner.

    Going beyond sentencing, the Government are fully committed to improving outcomes for victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls in all its forms and, critically, to preventing more victims in future. Last year, we passed the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and, since then, we have published the rape review action plan, the cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy, a complementary tackling domestic abuse plan and, in May this year, our draft victims Bill.

    The vast majority of the measures passed in the Domestic Abuse Act are in force already. In July this year, the most recent measure in the Act came into force, meaning that abusers are no longer able to cross-examine their victims directly in the family and civil courts. The cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy seeks to transform the whole-society response in order to prevent offending, to support victims and to pursue perpetrators.

    The tackling domestic abuse plan is investing more than £230 million of cross-Government funding into prevention and protecting victims, including more than £140 million to support victims and more than £81 million to tackle perpetrators. The plan introduces key commitments to reduce domestic homicide, including reform of the domestic homicide review process and building the first ever central repository of such reviews.

    The plan also announced a domestic abuse policing and domestic homicide prevention pilot, which will involve auditing forces that have relatively high levels of domestic homicide to ensure that they are doing everything possible to prevent those crimes. It also announced that we continue to invest in research to build the evidence base on domestic homicide prevention. The Home Office has already awarded more than £2 million in research projects over the past two years.

    The victims Bill will improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system. It sends a clear signal about what victims can and should expect from the criminal justice system by enshrining the overarching principles of the victims code in primary legislation. It will increase transparency and oversight of criminal justice agencies’ services to victims, so that we can identify problems, drive up standards and give the public confidence. It will enable improvements in the quality and consistency of support services for victims by improving how organisations work together to commission support services to meet the needs of victims better, and to increase awareness of independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers. We are carefully considering the recommendations of the Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, which will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

    Tackling violence against women and girls in all its forms remains an utmost priority for the Government, and the Prime Minister spoke last week about his determination and motivation to ensure that we tackle this issue. I have outlined the key action that the Government are taking, but of course there is more to do, and we will revisit this topic once we are able to respond to the Wade review. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch for her tireless work on this issue, both in and out of Government, and I thank colleagues for their contributions today.

  • Ellie Reeves – 2022 Speech on the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review

    Ellie Reeves – 2022 Speech on the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review

    The speech made by Ellie Reeves, the Labour MP for Lewisham West and Penge, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 30 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) for securing this incredibly important debate, for speaking so powerfully and for all the work she did as a Minister in the Ministry of Justice. This debate is particularly timely as we are six days into the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence—a time when people all over the world take action to try to stop violence against women and girls.

    In many cases, domestic murderers get off too lightly after committing some of the most horrific crimes against women. As we have heard, there is clearly a gap in sentencing between those who murder at home and out on the street. That is why, in our May 2021 Green Paper, “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls”, Labour outlined that, in Government, we would commission a review into the effectiveness of the current legislation and sentencing policy. In June 2021, we also tabled an amendment in Committee during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, calling on the then Justice Secretary to commission a review, but the Tories voted it down.

    Although I am pleased that the Government have finally commissioned a review, I am dismayed by how long it has taken to progress. It took until September 2021 for Clare Wade KC to be appointed to undertake the review of domestic homicide sentencing. The review was originally due for completion in December 2021, but the report was delivered to the Justice Secretary this June. Nearly six months on, we are still waiting for the review’s findings—in that time, we have been through three Justice Secretaries. I am concerned that the chaos, and the carousel of changing Ministers, has meant that even a matter as important as this has not been seen as significant enough to be acted upon. Once again, women and victims of domestic abuse are being let down.

    We have heard that men who kill their partners often receive a lesser sentence than those who kill others, despite the fact that domestic homicide often occurs in the context of years of domestic abuse. For example, the law regards a murder where the knife is taken to the scene of the crime as premeditated. It therefore warrants a longer jail term, with a starting point of 25 years. That is a 10-year disparity with the starting point for a murder in the home where the weapon, such as a kitchen knife, is already present.

    Domestic homicides are often fully premeditated, aided by the perpetrator having full knowledge of the property and where to find objects to assist their violence. Indeed, the femicide census findings published in November 2020 showed that over the previous decade 62% of female homicides were at the hands of an intimate partner, 72% of victims died in their homes, 59% of cases involved a history of coercive control or violence, and almost half the perpetrators were known to have a history of abuse against women.

    The case of Poppy Devey Waterhouse, which the hon. Member for Redditch powerfully spoke about, highlights that. Poppy was just 24 when she was murdered in December 2018 by her ex-boyfriend. The couple had split in October 2018 but continued to live in the same flat in separate rooms. Three days before Poppy was due to move into a new property, her killer had been out drinking and was said to be intoxicated and fuelled by jealousy and rage. He returned to the flat and stabbed Poppy to death with a knife from their kitchen, inflicting over 100 injuries. Poppy’s killer received a sentence of just 16 years, but had he taken his weapon to the scene of crime, deemed an aggravating factor, he could have received a much longer sentence. As Poppy’s mother Julie Devey has outlined, the sentence ignores the fact that Poppy’s killer had no need to bring a weapon to the scene; he had knowledge that knives were in the flat and could be used in the attack.

    Julie has campaigned on this issue, and believes that the sentencing guidelines are simply wrong. She says:

    “The savagery and violence of the attacks seem to count for nothing in the eyes of the law and this is infuriating”.

    The change that Julie wants is for domestic murder tariffs to reflect the severity of the crime, rather than the location of the killing. If that were the case, the fact that a knife was used would be the aggravating factor, rather than the act of bringing it to the scene. That seems a wholly just change, which I would hope to see covered in the sentencing review.

    If the public are to have confidence in the criminal justice system, we need appropriate sentences to deter potential offenders and to deal just punishment for serious crimes. That is why we called for a review into sentencing for domestic homicide and domestic abuse over a year and a half ago. We cannot afford for our laws and their enforcement to send the signal that violence against women and girls will be tolerated; yet record low prosecution and conviction rates under this Government are sending that message. Labour would back specialist rape courts to drive up prosecution rates, set up a domestic violence register and introduce new minimum sentences for rape and stalking.

    I am fearful that the delays with the domestic homicide sentencing review are part of an ingrained culture that tackling violence against women and girls is not a matter of urgency for the Government. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the review will be published as a matter of urgency, and the Government will end their inaction.

  • Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review

    Jim Shannon – 2022 Speech on the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review

    The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 30 November 2022.

    I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) for setting the scene so well. I spoke to her outside in Westminster Hall—it was freezing out there; it is slightly warmer in here, thank goodness. She deserves to be commended for bringing this matter to the House.

    I mentioned to the hon. Lady that I want to give some figures for Northern Ireland to underline where we are. To be fair, Northern Ireland is not the responsibility of the Minister, because this is a devolved matter, but I want to give those figures to illustrate why I fully support what the hon. Member for Redditch is putting forward today.

    The hon. Lady has spoken up on numerous occasions; she has done good work and made sterling comments in support of victims of domestic abuse and, ultimately, the voiceless. In Westminster Hall and in the Chamber, more often than not we speak for the voiceless—those who do not have a voice and who do not have anybody to ask questions on their behalf. The hon. Lady set that scene very well.

    We also speak for those who, sadly, have been taken too soon due to domestic homicide. I speak today to raise awareness of the issue and for those in Northern Ireland who have fought tirelessly for greater sentencing reviews. It is great to be here in Westminster Hall for them.

    Recent Home Office statistics show that 61% of victims of domestic homicide had a vulnerability. The hon. Lady referred to a lady who was dependent on her partner, who abused her in every possible way, to the extent that her confidence was low and she did not have the freedom she deserved, and then she was brutally injured by her partner. Some 34% of those victims had mental health issues, while 28% had alcohol problems and 23% used illicit drugs. Most of that was down not to their addiction but to their dependence on their evil partner, who subjected them to that lifestyle and, ultimately, to their death. Despite those figures, there is absolutely no reason why somebody should be subjected to their own death at the hands of a domestic partner.

    It was revealed in February 2022 that Northern Ireland has, per head of population, the joint highest rate in Europe of women killed as a result of domestic violence. I was horrified to hear those figures. I have already told the hon. Lady about some of the figures that we have back home. Over the recent period of covid—and, indeed, before that—the worrying trend of abuse against partners was at a level incomparable with anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We remain the only part of the UK that does not have a law criminalising the use of coercive control of a partner. Back home, the Northern Ireland Assembly has decreed that it will look at this matter.

    Following that news, I am pleased to make Members aware that on 10 November 2022—just two weeks ago, or thereabouts—the Northern Ireland Department of Justice concluded its review of domestic homicide. Independent reviews of homicides include a range of representatives from numerous agencies across Northern Ireland, including Women’s Aid, which I have worked with on numerous occasions and which has information on some absolutely worrying trends; the health and social care trusts; the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which tells me that domestic abuse issues are involved in a large number of cases that it deals with, not just in my constituency but across Northern Ireland; the Probation Board for Northern Ireland; and the Department of Health’s strategic planning and performance group, formerly the Health and Social Care Board.

    Over the past few years, as I told the hon. Lady before we came into Westminster Hall, there have been occasions on which the sentence given for murdering or injuring someone has not equated to the crime. I want things to be improved. We have asked the Public Prosecution Service to review those cases. It is important that the law of the land gives the right sentence for the crime.

    Since the start of the pandemic, 12 women have been killed in their homes. Similarly, instances of domestic abuse have increased and continue to increase in Northern Ireland. These figures cover a short period of time and are shocking for a population of 1.9 million, but they underline why today’s debate is so important. The latest PSNI figures show that it received reports of almost 2,000 domestic abuse incidents between 14 December 2021 and January 2022—in other words, during a six-week period. Those figures are worrying. That illustrates why this debate is important and why the sentencing review must take place, and it is why I am here to support the hon. Lady in her request for that. Domestic violence and homicide accounts for some 20% of all crime in Northern Ireland, which is completely unacceptable. None of us here could ever contemplate just how bad it is.

    Domestic homicide sentencing reviews are to learn, to improve services and to support the families who are living with domestic abuse. Northern Ireland’s latest domestic homicide plan confirms the horrifying truth that domestic violence and homicide is getting worse. Is it because of covid? Is it because of stress? Nothing whatsoever justifies an attack on a partner, especially on a lady. I am an old-fashioned person, and I will always speak up for someone who is unable to speak for themselves. That is why this debate is important to me.

    These cases are a complete tragedy. Each one is preventable with the correct support and encouragement to victims to speak up and notice the signs. Sentencing reviews will strengthen the link between review learning, policymaking for domestic homicide sentencing, and practice. There is hope that that will result in changes that prevent future deaths of loved ones who are subject to domestic abuse.

    We live in a very troubled society. The reality is that domestic violence is a common occurrence. I know that it features heavily in my constituency workload back home. Domestic violence that is not dealt with in the first instance has the potential to turn deadly, which is why the hon. Lady has brought the debate forward.

    We must ensure that sentencing reviews for domestic homicide are treated with the most intense sentencing rulings, as they are murder. That is necessary both for prevention and to ensure that sentencing reflects just how bad the crime is. Regardless of the situation or the circumstances, no individual deserves to die at the hands of someone else so violently. I have seen that with horror in Northern Ireland. I know that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I wanted to add it into the equation in support of the hon. Member for Redditch. I very much look forward to the Minister’s reply.

    I will, obviously, share this debate with the Justice Department back home and the Minister, Naomi Long, to let her know what is happening here so that we can try to move forward after the report that we have just done on domestic homicide reviews, and do something equally vital. The volume of abuse and homicide contributes to a deteriorating picture of our criminal system, and we must do more.

  • Rachel Maclean – 2022 Speech on the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review

    Rachel Maclean – 2022 Speech on the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review

    The speech made by Rachel Maclean, the Conservative MP for Redditch, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 30 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the Domestic Homicide Sentencing Review.

    It is great to see Members here, and I thank the House for allowing time for this vital debate. I believe this Government have a strong and world-leading record on tackling violence against women and girls. I am very proud of what the Government have done, including, to name just a few, the violence against women and girls strategy, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the domestic abuse plan and the “Enough” campaign—a multimillion-pound public education broadcast campaign aimed at achieving long-term behaviour change and preventing public sexual harassment and domestic abuse.

    Time does not allow me to give a comprehensive summary, but I am confident that the debate today will receive a positive hearing from the Minister. It deals with the most serious form of violence, which is where the violence ends in the death of a victim.

    Last week, I spoke to two bereaved mothers of beautiful, young, talented daughters who had their whole lives ahead of them, but were murdered by their male partners. It was impossible to come away from a meeting with Carole Gould and Julie Devey, the mothers of Poppy Devey Waterhouse and Ellie Gould, without feeling heartbroken and devastated, not least because Poppy was about the same age as my daughter. I feel her mother’s pain only too intensely.

    Carole and Julie are just two parents bereaved as a result of domestic homicide. There are too many more, and too many for me to refer to each one by name, but that in no way diminishes their pain or trauma. In researching this debate, I read hundreds of stories. Each one is harrowing. I want anyone watching or reading this debate to know that their loved ones are not just a set of words on a page, or a statistic that we can flick past and forget. As Her Majesty the Queen Consort said yesterday in her first major speech since she ascended to her position,

    “we refuse to be desensitised by cold facts and figures and we resolve to keep the names and the memories of these women alive.”

    Domestic homicide means that the victim is killed by someone with whom they are closely connected—either their intimate partner or family member. Before I go any further, I want the House to be in no doubt about the facts. Men and boys can be, and are, victims of domestic abuse and homicide. Government policy rightly can and does take account of that, but in the context of the United Nations campaign to raise awareness of violence against women, it is also a fact that domestic abuse is a gendered crime. In that context, I will keep the focus of my remarks on female victims.

    Women are much more likely than men to be victims of domestic homicide. Forty-nine per cent. of all female homicides and 10% of male homicides are domestic homicides. Home Office data for the past three years records 207 female victims of domestic homicide who were killed by their male partner or ex-partner, compared with 29 male victims of domestic homicide killed by a female partner or ex-partner.

    Poppy and Ellie’s killers were caught and sentenced, but the court cases did not bring justice for their families and friends. Poppy’s murderer, Joe Atkinson, was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years and two months, and Ellie’s murderer, Thomas Griffiths, who was sentenced as a child, got 12 years and six months. The families point out that had the killers taken a knife out of the home and gone to the local park to stab their daughters, they would have received a much higher sentence, with a 25-year starting point, but most domestic homicides take place in the home, meaning that a knife is not taken to the scene; it is already there in the home. That automatically reduces the available sentence starting point to a minimum tariff of only 15 years.

    Carole and Julie point out that overkill is overlooked. Overkill is a typical feature of domestic homicides; they are often frenzied, brutal and violent, involving excessive, repeated use of force or injury way beyond what is needed to achieve the actual killing, yet that does not add any significant time to the sentence.

    John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)

    I agree with everything that the hon. Member said. I wish to place on record a similar case from Leyton in my constituency: Linah Keza was murdered by her former partner in the home in a very frenzied attack. Does the hon. Member agree that, very often, the system lets down these women? In this case, the police repeatedly refused to take any notice of threats to her, one of which was recorded, and a police officer told the attacker, Ms Keza’s former partner, that he was fine to visit her unsupervised.

    Rachel Maclean

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that case to the House’s attention. As I said, I have read about hundreds of such cases. It is very important that the police and all the frontline services put into practice the training that they now have to deal with these issues. I will come on to my recommendations later.

    For many women, the murder comes after they have experienced domestic abuse, including violence or coercive and controlling behaviour. An overkill element also means that the family members’ trauma is even more heightened. Many of them suffer from post-traumatic stress.

    Let us turn to another killer. Sally Challen bludgeoned her husband to death with a hammer. She was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff of 18 years, but a landmark judgment using the new coercion and control offences that the Government introduced in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 saw her conviction quashed, and she walked free after serving nine years. The judge agreed with her barrister, Clare Wade KC, and the campaign group Justice for Women, that Challen was a victim of coercive control that spanned decades; she met her husband aged 16. He had humiliated and manipulated her, which is a classic pattern of controlling behaviour. The court accepted that, and her sentence was converted to manslaughter.

    Let us touch on the case of Anthony Williams, who strangled his 67-year-old wife, Ruth, to death. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was acquitted of murder. His defence argued that his actions were due to his mental state, which had worsened due to the covid-19 pandemic. This lesser charge and the sentence of five years’ imprisonment was strongly criticised by politicians from all parties and anti-domestic abuse activists. The Joanna Simpson Foundation, among others, argued that diminished responsibility and loss of control are overused defences for men in domestic homicides; that the defences are used in circumstances that they were not designed for; and that their use risked downgrading and normalising domestic abuse, which should not be tolerated. The “Women Who Kill” report, published by the Centre for Women’s Justice, found that, by contrast, women who kill their partners largely do so having been subjected to abuse from the men they kill. In 77% of the cases covered in that research, there is evidence to suggest that women had experienced violence or abuse from the deceased. Despite that, they are unlikely to be acquitted on grounds of self-defence.

    Finally, I will mention one more case. Sophie Moss was choked to death during sex by Sam Pybus. He applied prolonged pressure to her neck and admitted to manslaughter; however, he literally claimed that she asked for it, as part of a consensual rough sex game. The judge accepted that, and he was jailed for four years and eight months—the same length of time that he might have received for a driving offence. An appeal to increase his sentence was rejected. It is clear even from this cursory summary, which in no way covers all the victims to whom I could have referred, that some of the sentences received by men who kill their female partners or ex-partners do not reflect the seriousness of domestic abuse, or the fact that these homicides often follow a period of prolonged abuse. On the other hand, sentences received by women who kill their partners in self-defence could appear disproportionate, particularly in cases in which they used a weapon. The issue of the knife coming from inside the home, as it is much more likely to have done when a woman is killed in a domestic homicide, adds another dimension.

    It is an unfortunate fact that a woman who kills her male partner in self-defence is, due to her lesser physical strength, more likely to have needed to use a weapon of some type. That attracts a more serious sentence than would be received by a male such as Sam Pybus who kills a female partner by strangulation. We have seen that he was able to claim that he strangled her as part of a consensual sex activity that tragically went wrong. Strangulation does not always leave a mark, which compounds the difficulties for the police investigation and prosecution.

    In response to all these cases and many more, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and Victims’ Commissioner wrote to the then Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), calling for a review of domestic homicide sentencing, due to their concerns that the sentencing for these homicides did not match the impact and severity of the crime. In March 2021, the domestic homicide sentencing review was announced, and in September 2021 Clare Wade KC, Sally Challen’s appeal barrister, was appointed to conduct the review. In welcoming the review, Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, said:

    “Crucially, the Wade Review will also shed some much-needed light on how victims of domestic abuse who kill their abusers are treated by the criminal Justice system. Victims of domestic abuse…must receive a trauma-informed response from the criminal Justice system.”

    I come to the central purpose of the debate, which is to ask the Government to publish the review as soon as possible and come forward with their response. I will ask detailed questions later, but first I wish to put on the record my thanks to all the campaign groups and people who spoke to me in the course of my research; I pay tribute to them for all the determined work that they have done on behalf of the victims, who, of course, cannot speak for themselves. I was fortunate to be able to speak to Clare Wade KC ahead of the debate. The content of the report will be familiar to the Minister, as it was to me when I briefly had the privilege of serving in the Ministry of Justice as the Minister of State for Victims and Vulnerability. It is a detailed, extensive, substantive, compelling and well-researched piece of work that makes for harrowing reading. I thank Clare Wade for the thoughtfulness that she has brought to the commission. She tells me that she set out a suite of recommendations that, taken together, constitute a coherent policy response. If implemented, they would tackle the gaps in sentencing options. She believes that the only way forward is to properly recognise the impact of domestic abuse, violence and coercive control in all its forms, and that the criminal justice process needs to take account of the harms to the victim, their family and wider society, so that justice can be done, and be seen to be done.

    Another group I have spoken to, Refuge, states that one of the key problems is that the nature of coercive control is still poorly understood. More work needs to be done to educate people about the fact that it is not solely about physical violence. Frontline practitioners need to understand and act on the knowledge that the trigger point for danger is when a woman tries to leave or has left a relationship. The cases need to be dealt with by specialists, and more can be done to build on existing practices to ensure that courts, juries and judges understand and incorporate that knowledge. I recently tabled a written question to the Ministry of Justice and the response stated:

    “The independent reviewer required more time than anticipated to complete the review and it was delivered to the department in June this year. The Review examines a number of important and complex issues… the government is carefully considering its recommendations and next steps.”

    Let us return for a moment to Carole Gould and Julie Devey. They believe that one of the key problems with the law is on the issue of premeditation. They state that it may never be known whether the perpetrator planned to commit the murder in the home, knowing that weapons were there. Remember, that planning would attract a higher tariff, in that taking the knife to the scene indicates an element of premeditation. They state that using hands as weapons for strangulation has never been acknowledged as part of premeditated murder. They also believe that sentences do not reflect the fact that these are dangerous perpetrators. The fact that they could strangle or stab someone with whom they have been in an intimate relationship surely means that they are a danger to the public, so there is a public protection issue that is not being picked up in sentencing.

    I ask Members to cast their mind back to the case of Sophie Moss, which I mentioned. The Minister will be aware of the outstanding work of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). As part of a group of MPs, she was successful in removing the rough sex defence to killing. She now has a private Member’s Bill that seeks to amend the sentencing code to provide for a minimum sentence of 12 years for cases of manslaughter that are sexually motivated. It is right to consider her ask in this debate.

    I have questions for the Minister. Has he read the Clare Wade review, and what does he think of the recommendations? When will he publish the review? When will he come forward with the Government’s response? What is his response to my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill? Will he ensure that the measures he brings forward in response to the Wade review tackle the sentencing injustices relating to victims killed as part of so-called rough sex? How will he ensure that any recommendations flowing from the Wade review include training for courts, juries, judges, prosecutors and police in fully recognising the wider harms of domestic abuse, abusive relationships and the origins of violence against women? Will he bring forward the new measures that are required if we are to level up sentencing in the victims Bill? If he is unable to commit to that, what legislative vehicle does he foresee as being suitable?

    Her Royal Highness the Queen Consort said,

    “These women, tragically, can no longer speak for themselves. But we listen to those who can. I have learnt from my conversations with these brave survivors that what they want, above all, is to be listened to and believed, to prevent the same thing happening to others. They know there is power in their stories and that, in the telling, they move from being the victims of their histories to the authors of their own futures.”

    We must and will do more. I finish with the words of Julie and Carole:

    “Public perception needs to be changed and the correct sentencing can lead the way to show that these Domestic Homicides will not be seen as lesser crimes.”

    I look forward to the Minister’s response. I want to place on the record my thanks to everybody who spoke to me before the debate, whether they are from a campaign group that assisted me with research, or whether they are the families.

  • John Lamont – 2022 Speech on an Independence Referendum for Scotland

    John Lamont – 2022 Speech on an Independence Referendum for Scotland

    The speech made by John Lamont, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 30 November 2022.

    It is a privilege to respond to this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) on securing this debate. I am pleased to respond to my first Westminster Hall debate as a Scotland Office Minister. The hon. Gentleman chose to focus the debate on the issue of an independence referendum. I cannot help but feel that this valuable debating time could have been better focused on matters of immediate importance to his constituents, mine in the Scottish Borders, and the constituents of other Members across Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

    Neale Hanvey

    Will the Minister give way?

    John Lamont

    I shall make some progress, if I may. The hon. Member had quite some time to make his points, and I want the opportunity to—

    Neale Hanvey

    On a point of order, Mr Bone. It is a shame that the Minister did not allow me to intervene. However, he makes assertions that are simply not possible. He is asking me in some way to manage the Scottish Government, or indeed to divorce myself from the reality experienced by my constituents, who voted for me to secure Scotland’s independence.

    Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. It was clearly not a point of order, but his remarks are on the record.

    John Lamont

    I think our constituents would rather that this place, the Government and the Scottish Government concentrated all their attention and resources on the issues that matter to Scots and people across the United Kingdom.

    Let me respond to the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. It is clear to this United Kingdom Government and people in Scotland that now is not the time to talk about another referendum. This Government have noted, and respect, the unanimous ruling of the United Kingdom Supreme Court. Its unanimous view on the substantive matter supports the United Kingdom Government’s long-standing position that a referendum is not within the powers of the Scottish Parliament. It is clear that Scotland has a strong and thriving democracy, but the power to have a referendum rests with this place. To suggest that Scotland does not have a thriving and strong democracy, and to suggest that only those who support leaving the UK support democracy, is an insult to the majority of Scots who wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. The nationalists’ rhetoric is irresponsible. The notion is absurd—so absurd that, in recent days, we have heard the absolute nonsense of some nationalists bemoaning the death of democracy in one breath and boasting of election victories with the next. I should be clear that the hon. Gentleman was not guilty of that, for perhaps obvious reasons.

    The Scottish Parliament is able to legislate in every area in which the Scotland Acts 1998, 2012 and 2016 give it the power to do so. That makes it one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. People want the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to focus on the issues that matter to them, not on constitutional division. We should not forget that the people of Scotland voted decisively to remain part of the UK in 2014. The hon. Member made much of the people of Scotland’s need for self-determination; the vote in 2014 was the ultimate act of self-determination. The Scots voted in record numbers to remain part of the United Kingdom.

    On the hon. Member’s questions about the path to a referendum and whether the Union is based on consent, in 2014 both the UK and Scottish Governments agreed that it was right for the people to have their say in an independence referendum. If there is ever a referendum again, then it has to be based on consent and consensus across both Governments and all parts of civic Scotland.

    I will spend a little time pointing out some of the benefits of the Union, which the hon. Member failed to mention at all.

    David Duguid

    I want to comment on the previous point, which my hon. Friend the Minister made very well. The independence referendum in 2014 was agreed on through powers devolved temporarily to the Scottish Parliament. For the benefit of the House, will the Minister confirm, following last week’s Supreme Court ruling, that the democratic and legal position that led to consensus at the time of the independence referendum has not changed in any way? Will he confirm that nothing has changed in a democratic or legal sense since then?

    John Lamont

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about securing consensus, not just between the UK and Scottish Governments, but across all parts of society in Scotland. We are lacking that just now. As he knows, we face major challenges, including restoring economic stability, gripping inflation, supporting people with their energy bills, supporting the NHS, combating climate change, supporting Ukraine and levelling up. People across Scotland just do not accept that now is the time for another divisive referendum.

    At this time of unprecedented challenges, the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom have never been more apparent. For instance, the people of Scotland benefit from substantially higher public spending thanks to being part of the United Kingdom. That Union dividend means that remaining part of the UK is worth around £2,000 per year for every Scot. That is demonstrated in figures from the SNP Government in Edinburgh. Furthermore, the UK Government are providing the Scottish Government with a record block grant settlement of £41 billion per year over the next three years.

    There can be no question about this Government’s commitment to Scotland; it is best demonstrated by what we are delivering on the ground. That includes a multi billion-pound investment in Scotland’s defence and shipbuilding industries, which will safeguard not just the UK’s security, but tens of thousands of jobs on the Clyde and beyond.

    Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)

    The Minister does not have to give way, but he might be under the impression that we have to keep this debate to half an hour. We have some extra time because the previous debate finished early, if that helps the hon. Member and the Minister.

    John Lamont

    I am grateful for that clarity, Mr Bone. I am keen to make the strong and positive case for Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. We have heard much nonsense from nationalist Members in this debate, and I want to make the record slightly more accurate.

    There has also been the record £1.5 billion city and growth deals programme, which invests in Scotland’s infrastructure and future. Another example would be the collaboration of local councils, which are delivering real devolution by levelling up communities and bringing local projects to life. Another divisive referendum is the wrong—

    Neale Hanvey

    On a point of order, Mr Bone.

    Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)

    We have another point of order, which I am sure will be in order this time.

    Neale Hanvey

    The question that is being considered is the position on a further independence referendum for Scotland, not the Government’s alleged beneficence towards Scotland. That is not the matter under consideration. I would respectfully ask that the Minister restricts his comments to the subject of the debate.

    Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)

    Thank you very much for that intervention, but I am afraid that is my job. If the Minister is wandering off, I will bring him to order. He is wandering, but not quite off the pitch yet.

    John Lamont

    Thank you, Mr Bone. Another divisive referendum is the wrong priority, at the worst possible time, and would be a complete distraction from the very real challenges that people across our country face.

    Kenny MacAskill

    I am listening to the Minister expound the great virtues. Can he explain to me why, when Scotland is energy-rich, more than half of our people are going to be fuel-poor this winter, and many will be in extreme fuel poverty?

    Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)

    Order. I am just considering what the hon. Member said, and am remembering what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath said. I am not quite sure what that point has got to do with the referendum. I will leave it up to the Minister.

    John Lamont

    I am grateful for that clarification, Mr Bone.

    I fully understand and recognise the real pressures that people are facing just now with the rising cost of energy. We all know that is largely due to rising inflation, which is of course due to the illegal war in Ukraine.

    Kenny MacAskill indicated dissent.

    John Lamont

    The hon. Member for East Lothian shakes his head; I would like to know what evidence he has to suggest that the war in Ukraine is not causing rising energy prices.

    That is why this Government have taken action to support households in all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, to deal with those rising energy bills. That is yet another benefit of the strength of the Union and the power that this Parliament and Government are able to take to support people during difficult and challenging times.

    Instead of divisive constitutional arguments, people in Scotland want and rightly expect both of their Governments, here and in Edinburgh, to be concentrating all their attention and resources on the issues that matter to them, their families and communities, such as the cost of living, working to drive down NHS backlogs, protecting jobs and securing our long-term energy security. The Prime Minister has been clear in his commitment to working collaboratively and constructively with the Scottish Government to tackle all the challenges we share and face. That is exactly what we want to do in vital areas, such as growing our economy, supporting our NHS and leading the international response to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. This Government remain focused on getting on with the job of delivering for the people of Scotland.

  • Neale Hanvey – 2022 Speech on an Independence Referendum for Scotland

    Neale Hanvey – 2022 Speech on an Independence Referendum for Scotland

    The speech made by Neale Hanvey, the Alba MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 30 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered Government policy on a further independence referendum for Scotland.

    Today is St Andrew’s day, and on this national day there is a particular significance and imperative. Last week, the UK Supreme Court told the Scottish Government that they could not exercise their democratic mandate to hold an independence referendum. But there was something else in that judgment—something that simply cannot be tolerated. There was the suggestion that, somehow, Scotland as a nation does not possess a right to self-determination. In suggesting that, the London Supreme Court overturned what has been the accepted legal, historic and political position that the UK is a voluntary Union.

    Scotland’s separate constitutional tradition is perhaps best summed up in the view expressed by Lord Cooper, in the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate,

    “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle, which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.”

    The Supreme Court seems to have repudiated that. Last week’s judgment rendered the UK a state of glaring contradiction. There are contradictions in our shared history, and contradictions of equality, politics, and representation.

    The UK enthusiastically claims it seeks to preserve democracy the world over, yet moves to block Scotland at each and every turn. Can the Minister imagine the circumstances where, having entered the common market and ratified every subsequent treaty—leading to the European Union—the EU Parliament moved to block his party’s Brexit vote, or set a limit on when and if such a vote could be heard? The notion is, of course, ludicrous, because democracy is not a single event but an evolving and continuous process. That is how civilised people behave, and how freedom of thought and expression are peacefully demonstrated. Those are the foundations of inalienable human rights.

    I will consider the contradictions, concluding with a commentary of the Supreme Court’s judgment. We are often told in this place that Scotland must be proud of our shared history as part of the most successful political union ever. I will test that narrative and ask the Minister to consider our shared history through a Scottish prism.

    Before the Union, the English Alien Act 1705 threatened economic sanctions if Scotland did not settle the royal succession, or negotiate for a political union. The treaty was met with vociferous opposition both inside and outside Scotland’s parliamentary chamber but, given threats and enticements, a majority of Scottish parliamentarians were persuaded. The people were never consulted.

    It so often goes that this is all ancient history and irrelevant to a modern Scotland in a respectful union of equals. Last week’s judgment challenged that previously understood narrative. What of that modern Scotland? In my lifetime, the political complexion of Westminster rule has rarely reflected the polity of Scotland. We have endured repeated Tory Governments that Scotland did not vote for, or Labour Administrations that took us into illegal wars that we wanted no part of.

    Socioeconomic policies have destroyed our communities, exploited our resources and worked against the utility of the people of Scotland, contrary to the Articles of Union. The pursuit of such social and economic policies has driven a stake through the heart of once proud communities. As noted in the pleadings of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), in her prorogation case to the UK Supreme Court, the 1707 parliamentary Union between England and Scotland may have created a new state but it did not create one nation.

    Scotland was an independent nation for millennia before its coerced incorporation. It remains a distinct and internationally recognised people and country. No clearer is that evidenced than by the much earlier and continuing Union of the Crowns, where our shared monarch does not accede to a single throne of Britain, but takes the separate crowns of the realms of Scotland and England.

    As a member of the EU, the UK possessed and exercised a veto, yet claimed its sovereignty was impeded by membership. Scotland has no such mechanism in this place, and is always subject to the wiles of the policy of its larger neighbour, exemplified by Brexit. How does that constitute access to meaningful political process, as claimed by the UK Supreme Court judgment?

    In signing the Atlantic charter of 1941, wartime Prime Minister and hero of the Conservative party, Winston Churchill, brought into being the principle of self-determination of peoples, as now set out in the United Nations charter, in article 1(2), article 73 and article 76. Margaret Thatcher in her memoirs said of Scotland:

    “As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination.”

    John Major, when Prime Minister, said of Scotland:

    “No nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will.”

    Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)

    The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. He started by raising the point about the Supreme Court and self-determination. I found paragraph 88 of the judgment particularly interesting:

    “The people in question are entitled to a right to external self-determination because they have been denied the ability to exert internally their right to self-determination.”

    The judgment did exactly that; it did limit that right. The reason the judgment did not give the referendum was because, if it happened—even if it had limited legal effect—as it says in paragraph 81, it

    “would possess the authority, in a constitution and political culture founded upon democracy”—

    and that is all over western Europe. Ultimately, the concession has been made by the Supreme Court that the ballot box rules supreme. Indeed, the ballot box made the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court is a creature of the UK Government, which in turn was made at the ballot box.

    Neale Hanvey

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will consider the blurred boundaries of legal and political, as I move through my speech. In 1989, this place reaffirmed and acknowledged the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. In May 1997, in an exchange with the right hon. Alex Salmond during the passage of the Bill that became the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997, the late Donald Dewar responded that he should be the last to challenge the sovereignty of the people, accepting the right of the Scottish people to a choice, including independence, should that be their wish. None of these senior politicians ever placed a limit on or sought to constrain that democratic right to self-determination. Indeed, in the wake of the 2014 referendum, the Smith commission agreement was signed by all of Scotland’s main political parties and it stated:

    “It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”

    Of course, the Good Friday agreement sets out a reasoned and internationally considered timescale of every seven years to consider constitutional change. A political generation of seven years is not unreasonable, but Scotland is now a year beyond and no further forward. It is therefore imperative; if there is a consented, legal and democratic route by which the people of Ireland —north and south—can choose their own constitutional future in a border poll every seven years, what is the consented, legal and democratic route by which the people of Scotland’s sovereign right to determine their own constitutional future can be respected? That is a right underpinned by Scots law, which rests on the claim of right that asserts that it is the people who are sovereign.

    The Supreme Court’s rejection of the argument that Scotland has the right to self-determination in international law was described last week as “problematic”—very problematic—by Michael Keating, emeritus professor of politics at the University of Aberdeen. He states:

    “The way is now open for the UK Government to say that there is no time or way for Scotland to exercise its acknowledged right of self-determination”.

    He has quite rightly pointed out that in invoking the Canadian court’s ruling on Quebec, the UK Supreme Court failed to mention or consider a further aspect of that Canadian judgment—namely, that if Québec or any other province did vote for independence by a clear majority on a clear question, the Government of Canada would be bound to negotiate. That aspect of the Canadian court’s ruling is significant and in essence reflects a situation where legality meets politics.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    The hon. Gentleman is making a great speech, and I am grateful to him for giving way again. The Holyrood Standing Orders perhaps possess a way, and the Supreme Court has, unwittingly perhaps, opened up every election from now on for people to speak at the ballot box. Under rule 11.10 of the Standing Orders for Holyrood, “Selection of the First Minister”, paragraph 5 mentions what happens when there is one candidate, paragraph 7 when there are two candidates, and paragraph 8 when there are more than two candidates. That, with a combination of no-confidence votes, surely leaves the way open, if it was chosen, for Scotland to determine its own future—if Holyrood decides to do that.

    Neale Hanvey

    The hon. Gentleman will probably not like my answer, but that is a matter for the Scottish Government to consider.

    In addition to the point that I was making about political reality, Professor Keating goes on to argue that not going beyond the letter of the law to look at broader constitutional issues

    “risks undermining the conventions and understandings on which”

    the UK’s “largely unwritten constitution depends.” Those are wise reflections that both the UK Government and the UK Supreme Court would do well to consider.

    With regard to Kosovo, the UK has stated, in its submission to the International Court of Justice:

    “The United Kingdom considers that the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo was not incompatible with international law. It was not made in haste or in a political vacuum. Rather, it flowed from the failure of the two sides, and of the international community, after long and sustained effort, to secure any other framework”.

    Further, the UK

    “considers that developments since 17 February 2008 have crystallised Kosovo independence and cured any deficiency that might initially have existed. As the 1776 Declaration of Independence of the United States”—

    David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)

    I want to ask a question of clarification on the comparison to Kosovo. Is the hon. Gentleman really comparing the situation that Scotland finds itself in within the United Kingdom with Kosovo in the literally war-torn former Yugoslavia?

    Neale Hanvey

    I am referring to the petitioners’ arguments, the Supreme Court’s response and the UK Government’s judgment on the Kosovan situation. I am pursuing a line that was submitted by the petitioner and responded to by the UK Supreme Court.

    As the 1776 declaration of independence of the United States of America—a declaration of independence that the United Kingdom opposed at the time—illustrates, many states emerge to independence in what, at the time, were controversial circumstances. That does not vitiate their subsequent emergence into full statehood.

    These developments are succinctly crystallised by Robert McCorquodale, a professor of international law and human rights who has himself appeared as an advocate before the International Court of Justice and the UK Supreme Court. The dissolution of the USSR and its influence on the development of the right to self-determination has been examined, and Robert McCorquodale states, “Lithuania’s declaration of independence had substantial impacts on the understanding and application of the right to self-determination. The right to self-determination, which is a human right acknowledged by all states, changed from being limited to people with traditional colonial territories to applying to all states, including to peoples within states. This development has profound effects today, such as enabling people in all states worldwide to seek to exercise their right to self-determination.”

    That directly challenges a key assertion of the UK Supreme Court, which led it to conclude that the Scottish Government could not independently consult the Scottish people about independence and that it was in the gift of Westminster. Yet a public petition entitled, “The Treaty of Union 1707 is no longer fit for purpose and Dissolve The Union”, was submitted to this place in 2019 and was rejected by this place for the following reason:

    “We can’t accept your petition because this would be a decision of the people of Scotland and not the UK Government or Parliament.”

    On that, I wholly agree. For all the reasons given above, the UK Supreme Court’s position cannot stand unchallenged, particularly on our national day.

    Today I invite others to sign the declaration of St Andrew’s day, published in my name as early-day motion 633, which asserts the following:

    “we the people, elected members and civic organisations of Scotland assert that our nation has the right of self-determination to freely determine our political status and to freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development, mindful of the Scottish constitutional tradition of the sovereignty of the people, we will democratically challenge any authority or government which seeks to deny us that right.”

    On Wednesday 23 November 2022, it became clear that the wrong case had been argued at the wrong time and in the wrong court. Just as Westminster and the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court are part of the British state apparatus, so too is the Scottish Parliament, but if Scotland’s Parliament is denied agency over the future of its people, where stands democracy for the Scottish people?

    In Scots law, there is no sovereignty higher than that of our people, and here today I have asserted that right into the record. Neither Scotland’s claim of right nor the aspirations of the Scottish people to be a normal, outward-looking, independent nation are the sole purview of any one political party or any individual party leader. We now learn, the UK’s Secretary of State intends to act as a territorial viceroy, banning the Scottish civil service from advancing the democratic will of the Scottish people. Well, I give him fair warning: the independence movement extends far beyond the Scottish civil service. If anything, such an undemocratic move will simply galvanise and liberate the movement by decoupling our ambition from the daily trials of government. We are the nation of the Enlightenment, and our movement possesses minds with more ambition and vision than any Government or civil service that is subject to diktats from London.

    At the start of my contribution, I said that this was an issue of contradictions. Let me say today, on St Andrew’s day, that there is no contradiction in Scotland. Scotland is a proud and ancient nation that goes back millennia, and no one but the people of Scotland shall impede, limit or restrict our right to self-determination. It is precisely a week since the Supreme Court gave its judgment on the right of the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum on Scottish independence. Let me be clear: Charles Stewart Parnell said about another nation that was once a part of the United Kingdom:

    “No man has a right to fix a boundary of the march of a nation…no man”—

    no court, no Government—has the right to say to another country

    “thus far…and no further.”

  • Will Quince – 2022 Speech on Accountability in the NHS

    Will Quince – 2022 Speech on Accountability in the NHS

    The speech made by Will Quince, the Minister of State at the Department for Health and Social Care, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 30 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) on bringing this important debate to the House today. I know from our numerous conversations over the years that he is a tireless champion of healthcare provision, not just within his own constituency, and an advocate for instilling accountability and a learning culture throughout the NHS as a whole. Today, he has raised some difficult cases, albeit anonymised. I know the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who is responsible for patient safety, looks forward to receiving more information and will be happy to meet our right hon. Friend to discuss the cases further.

    I assure my right hon. Friend that this Government share his commitment to ensuring that the NHS delivers excellent care to all of its patients. We will never tire in striving to ensure that patient safety and high-quality care are at the heart of all patient care in our country. I am of the firm view that accountability for excellence applies at all levels of patient care, from the individual clinician caring for an individual patient through to Parliament’s role, as my right hon. Friend set out, in ensuring accountability for healthcare delivery by the NHS. It is essential that the commitment to excellence is central.

    My right hon. Friend rightly says that we love our NHS. Of course we do. However, we recognise that on rare occasions—not as rare as I would like—patient care falls short of the very high standards that we expect. He talked about getting answers for his constituents as a Member of Parliament. That is hugely important. I apologise that ministerial responses have not been as full as he hoped they would be. I will certainly look into that, because those responses are important. As a constituency MP, I too have cases from constituents who have raised concerns, either about their GP or their acute trust, and the level of service provided.

    My right hon. Friend rightly raises questions about why the NHS as an organisation does not more often simply say “sorry” when things go wrong. It is, as he says, a human business and things do go wrong.

    I hear what he said about ministerial responses. He is also right to say that Ministers are unable at present to respond to individual cases. There are reasons for that. As the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, the NHS is a complex organisation. We have NHS England, integrated care boards, integrated care systems, primary care networks, acute trusts, mental health trusts and ambulance trusts, and there is a question about whether Ministers or bodies such as NHS England and individual trusts should hold a level of operational accountability or delivery responsibility. That is a fair question, raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, but it is a tricky balance to reach.

    Ultimately, who is responsible for any failings within the NHS? Well, that is me. Who is responsible for delivery of services through the NHS? Not me. That position presents some challenges. Ministers have the ability to set the strategy at national level, but there is a big difference between the strategy, the approach, the culture and the leadership set in Whitehall and what actually happens at grassroots level at individual trusts. However, although I do not have direct operational responsibility, trust me when I say that every single day I am thinking about every single case where an ambulance is delayed and people have to wait too long; about all the 7.1 million people in our elective backlog, and about all those who do not get the excellent care that they rightly deserve and expect through our NHS. That is because I am the one who is responsible for that. I get the letters, and sometimes the responses are not as full as we would want, because I do not have at my fingertips all the information I need to be able to respond in the way I would like. We need to look at that.

    My right hon. Friend rightly says that most people do not want to sue or take legal action against our NHS. They are desperately sad about what has happened, and they may be disappointed or even angry, but that does not mean that they want to seek financial redress or sue a hospital trust. They know the implications of that—the money comes out of operational budgets.

    Having been the responsible Minister, I am acutely aware that we have an annual clinical negligence bill of £2.6 billion, which is huge. Understandably, I would rather spend that £2.6 billion on NHS frontline services. I have huge sympathy with my right hon. Friend’s view that we should collectively put our hands up, explain what went wrong and why, demonstrate how we are learning from that as an organisation, and clearly explain the steps that we are taking to put it right. We collectively as Ministers have a role to play in that. I will reflect on his comments and explore what more we can do.

    The Government have made significant strides to advance patient safety over the last decade. As I said, it remains a top priority not just for the Government but for me personally. We are creating a transparent learning culture across health systems. That is key to avoiding tragedies in the first place, and essential to driving the improvements that we want to see. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, patient feedback has to be at the heart of that. Patients have to have the opportunity to share their experiences.

    It is vital that clinicians reflect upon the lessons learned and translate them into opportunities to improve their practice. That is vital for not just the individual consultant, doctor, nurse or allied health professional, but the NHS as a whole. We have to listen and learn from individual patient stories. Accountability is a thread that has to run through every single level of the NHS—from individual patient complaints and the learning they generate to organisational responsibility for the standard of patient care, through to integrated care boards and the delivery of high-quality outcomes and access to care for their populations.

    The accountability owed to partner organisations and local patients is just as important as accountability to national bodies. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, that is why we passed the Health and Care Act 2022, which embeds the principle of accountability throughout the NHS and our health and care system.

    Sir Mike Penning

    The Minister is being generous in his comments to myself and to colleagues. The issue for colleagues and patients is that the over £2 billion bill, the delayed operations and the waiting lists would be remarkably smaller problems if we had addressed them right at the start. The biggest point, going back to my constituent, is that the wrong operation was done in 1986. That gentleman has been back and forth with the NHS, with help from myself and others, which must have cost the NHS a small fortune in legal fees. Instead of addressing the individual issue to stop it getting bigger, the NHS fobbed and fobbed it off and passed it back around.

    I know we are short on time and the Minister wants to conclude. My final point is that when Ministers send out letters, it is often the trust that we are complaining about that has drafted the letter to their officials, which actually ends up coming to us. In a classic example the other day, I was thanked for being so supportive of the refurbishment of Watford General Hospital, when actually I have opposed it for the last 20 years. The trust wanted to send that message to the Minister, rather than address what we needed to address, which is patient safety. The stress on patients in this particular case is huge.

    Will Quince

    My right hon. Friend is right that there is a lot more that we can do. Reflecting what he has just said, I will touch on some of the measures that have been put in place over recent years.

    In 2019 there was the NHS patient safety strategy. We introduced, for the first time ever, a patient safety commissioner. There is the Health Service Safety Investigations Body, which will be an arm’s length body from April 2023 and which was the brainchild of the Chancellor when he was Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, there has also been huge investment in maternity services following those awful cases, not just to boost staff numbers, but to improve leadership and culture. There have also been changes to the Care Quality Commission, with the single framework coming in from January next year.

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that some cases take far too long, especially some of the neonatal cases. Those are often the cases that result in the largest payments made, but it can take many years before patients and families get the redress they needed. The Health Services Safety Investigations body is designed to be far more upfront about where something goes wrong. It is much better to learn the lessons in the period immediately after something has gone wrong than several years after the event, looking back retrospectively on what could have been done differently. We need to learn the lessons now and ensure that as few patients as possible go through the same experience. Clinicians, not just within that trust but across the integrated care board, or, where appropriate, across our NHS, should learn those lessons.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead has hammered home the point again about ministerial responses. I hear him, and I will speak with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes to see what more we can do in that space. Those points are well made. However, it is difficult because of the number of NHS acute trusts and the fact that we rely on information about what happened on the ground. It is a huge and complex organisation, but I understand, recognise and take his point that ministerial responsibility and oversight is important.

    We need to know the facts, and not just the facts as they are presented by a trust, in whose interest it might be to paint a rosier picture than it actually is on the ground—or to not paint the full picture. That is why it is so important that Ministers engage with local Members of Parliament to get the facts. They are the ones who are meeting with the trust executives and the board, as well as their constituents and the clinicians and health professionals on the ground delivering care, who will often—for want of a better word—whistleblow about what is actually happening in a trust, and not give the rose-tinted view that the executives of a trust may want.

    This has been a hugely important debate. It speaks to issues that are at the heart of our NHS. It is about getting it right first time and the excellent and consistent patient care that we rightly expect from our NHS. I hope, to some extent, that I have assured my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead of the importance that the Government place on quality, excellent patient care and accountability. His points have been well made. I will reflect on them, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes. I look forward to working with him to improve the situation across our NHS.

  • Mike Penning – 2022 Speech on Accountability in the NHS

    Mike Penning – 2022 Speech on Accountability in the NHS

    The speech made by Mike Penning, the Conservative MP in Hemel Hempstead, in Westminster Hall, House of Commons, on 30 November 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered accountability in the NHS.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I called this debate on accountability in the NHS. As a nation, we love our NHS which does a fantastic job for us, day in, day out. However, like any human being or organisation, sometimes it makes mistakes. When the NHS makes mistakes, the process of trying to get an apology or a mistake rectified is invariably a bureaucratic nightmare.

    I have a couple of examples I would like to raise. I have permission from one to use their name, but I probably will not do so, because I will yet again pass correspondence to the Minister. I appreciate that the Minister here, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), is not responsible in the Department for this subject. The relevant Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), is on the Floor of the House answering questions, and I thank this Minister for explaining why she is not here.

    We in Parliament are here to speak up for those who sometimes cannot speak up for themselves. When something goes wrong, Sir George, you would think we could get answers for constituents and get matters rectified, but within the NHS there is a lack of ministerial accountability, which I will come to in a moment. The complaints procedure eventually ends up with the ombudsman, but it takes for ever. There is a feeling in my constituency that, when things go wrong, the longer the process can be delayed, the more people will just accept what has happened. In some cases, they will sadly not be around any more. For their families and loved ones, this short debate is very important.

    Probably the most dramatic example for me, not of the physical effects of surgery but of the effect on someone’s life, concerns one of my constituents. The NHS decided in 1986 that he needed an operation on his nose, but the operation that took place was not the one that was supposed to. I will use the language: it was botched. It was probably not intentional; it was a mistake but, to this day, that has had detrimental effects on his quality of life.

    My constituent tried to go through the process of getting it rectified. I have tried to find out what was going on. He has pushed from pillar to post by different trusts: University College London and West Hertfordshire. I have written to previous Ministers over the years, only to be told that Ministers do not interfere in individual cases. I accept that but, when we reach a situation where there is nowhere else to go, ministerial accountability is important.

    Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, not least for the sensitivity of the issues he is raising. Ministers under Governments of all colours have sought to keep NHS operational matters at arm’s length. Does he agree that that reduces accountability and effectiveness? I am thinking more generally about the current huge backlog in cancer diagnosis and treatment. I do not see any direct and urgent Government intervention. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that is partly the result of the lack direct operational accountability for Ministers to the service?

    Sir Mike Penning

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We have seen during covid that, actually, when things get really bad, Ministers can step in and Prime Ministers can step in, but when we talk about individual cases, they cannot.

    In the case I am referring to, I ended up writing to the Minister, to be told to go to the ombudsman. I got fobbed off by the ombudsman, after we had been to the trust three or four times. I then wrote to the Minister again—this is over the course of years—to be told to take legal advice. This particular person has now been told, “Go back to your GP and get them to re-refer you if you’ve still got problems.” He has problems because they did not do the operation properly in the first place, and it has had a massive long-term effect on this gentleman’s quality of life.

    That is not the only case. I have been here for nearly 18 years, and I worked for a Member of Parliament for many years before that. In every constituency, this sort of case is brought before the MP. I have another example. Last summer, in the middle of heatwave in July, when the temperatures were unbelievably high, a very vulnerable young lady was brought in for a scan at my local hospital. She is the most vulnerable young lady. Her mother cares for her 24/7. She has carers in. She is a wheelchair user or bed-bound. She was left on a trolley in the heat for five hours when her ambulance did not arrive.

    When I contacted the trust and said, “What happened there?” it blamed the ambulance trust. When I contacted the ambulance trust, it said, “No, it was cancelled by the trust—it was their fault.” I do not care whose fault it was. It was the NHS’s fault that this happened to a very vulnerable young lady. She had no drink and no food. She was very, very ill. The ambulance trust said that the return journey was cancelled because she was so poorly on the trolley—well, she was so poorly because she had been left there for five hours!

    Trying to get to the bottom of what happens within the NHS when something goes wrong is so difficult. We have seen terrible situations in maternity services and in trusts around the country. These problems need to be addressed early on, instead of the drawbridge being brought up and people having to go through a massive complaints procedure where they have to complain three times before going to the ombudsman, and then the ombudsman will say it is out of time, and if they are not careful, they cannot go to court because that is out of time too. Is that the way we want our NHS to be seen by the public, who love the NHS?

    The NHS sees the NHS as a single entity. As MPs—and I was a shadow Health Minister for four and a half years—we understand that it is not a single entity. It is a set of silos where everybody passes the buck back and forth. What we need is joined-up thinking. When Members like myself write to Ministers about these issues, the answer is not to say, “Nothing to do with me, guv” and pass it down the line to the ombudsman or a lawyer. That surely costs more money and does not put the NHS in a particularly good light with my constituents who have had their operations botched

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He talks about silos, and I want to give him an example of that in my constituency. Many people await their care packages in order to be released from hospital and get better at home. On the other hand, there are people waiting urgently for hospital beds who cannot get one. Does he agree that there must be greater communication between trust managers and social care workers to ensure efficiency of care in the community, which would free up hospital beds and allow people to be treated quicker? In other words, we should do away with the silos and get things co-ordinated.

    Sir Mike Penning

    I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that right next to my constituency, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) goes to Watford General Hospital and looks at the boards to see whether people can medically be discharged, but they cannot because there is a lack of joined-up thinking.

    This is different. This is about the need for the NHS, when it may or may not have made a mistake, to address it full-on at the start. It should not draw up the drawbridge, with people having to go through the long, drawn-out procedure of making complaints and going to the ombudsman. For a Minister to say to a colleague and fellow MP, “Perhaps this person needs to take legal advice,” is not the attitude we should have towards people who have done the right thing. The NHS has said that they should have an operation, and the NHS has mucked up and botched—I use that word under privilege. At the same time, the person’s life has been detrimentally affected for years and years to come.

    I know the Minister is not the Minister responsible, but because we are all constituency MPs, I guarantee that before he was in his position, people were at his surgeries or wrote to him to say, “This happened to me within the NHS. What can you do to help me do something about it?” Somewhere along the line, perhaps the short debate we are having today will nudge the Department of Health and Social Care and the Government —I was a Minister in several Departments—to look at ministerial oversight.

    Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)

    The right hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech. In the light of this week’s shocking reports from Byline Times about the amount of sexual abuse and rapes that have occurred in hospital settings, does he agree that to improve accountability, we need the Government not only to urgently repeal the five-year rule, which limits some people from making complaints to the NHS, but to have clear, systematic and consistent data collection on all sexual misconduct across all hospital settings?

    Sir Mike Penning

    As usual, I agree with the hon. Lady. We do not agree on everything, but we agree on 99% of things.

    This is the crux of the matter, and there are two real issues here. In the case that I spoke about earlier, which goes way back to the ’80s, the gentleman’s mental and physical health has not been great. Other people, including the extreme examples alluded to by the hon. Lady, may be mentally affected in a way that I and many of the people in this room probably cannot understand. To have a block exclusion post five years seems so arbitrary in the modern world. The Government really must look at whether there should be an arbitrary rule and perhaps leave it to others to decide, rather than setting down in regulation the exceptional circumstances that might well have been in place. Trusts do have delegated powers—many more powers than I think they should have—and I know the new Act will help that, but it does not take into consideration the points that we have tried to raise in this morning’s debate.

    If we had this debate on the Floor of the House, I think we would have a full Chamber of colleagues. Rather than talking down the NHS, they would be saying, “When things go wrong, we need to address them.” When I was Police Minister, there was a big mistake under my portfolio, and I went before the House, explained that mistakes were made on the funding formula and put my hands up. I took a lot of flak for that, but it was a way to address things going forward. With the NHS being such a massive organisation, and an organisation that the public want to be able to trust, it must be better for us to address the issues at the start of a complaint.

    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, did not write the letter that I mentioned; it was written by her officials, who desperately want to defend the NHS. The complaint was not about the NHS in general; it was about a specific issue that we need to address. We are all here as Members of Parliament because we are supposed to represent the taxpayer—representation through taxation. I should be able to represent my constituents in that way without being told to go to the ombudsman. I know I have to go to the ombudsman, because I have been here a very long time, so I am capable of working that out. I am also capable of working out that we are outside the time limit, given the five-year rule.

    We need a change of mindset. I do not want individual Ministers to say, “This operation should take place, that one shouldn’t, and the hospital should have this number of wards”, but there has to be ministerial oversight when things go well, and when things go wrong.

    My constituent has given me permission to raise his case. I think it would be more useful not to put his name on the record here, but I will pass another letter to the Minister, which I hope might get a little more positivity when the Minister responsible writes back to me, rather than a response that fobs us off and says, “Please go away.”