European Union: Negotiations (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barwell (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the members of the committee for producing such a thorough report in short order. It is right that the Government of this country should determine our strategy for the negotiations, and it is right that Parliament should scrutinise that strategy. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on an outstanding speech. I find myself, as I all too often have on this issue, stuck between those who seem to believe that dismantling our economic and security relationship with most of our nearest neighbours is nothing to worry about at all, and those who blame the gap between the two parties solely on the British Government and attribute no blame to the other side of the argument.

I shall look at the three key conclusions in chapter 2 of the report. The first is that changes in the structure, and the way the Government have set out the Command Paper, make it difficult to trace changes in government policy. I do not agree with that conclusion. Indeed, I would argue that the committee’s excellent report proves that it is eminently possible to see where those changes have taken place.

Paragraph 20 says:

“The headings … rather than following the PD”—


the political declaration—

“appear to be based on those used in … Free Trade Agreements”.

As the Government are seeking to negotiate a free trade agreement, I do not think one can criticise them for that.

The second conclusion is that truncating the timetable will make it harder to reach an agreement. It is certainly true that the decision not to extend the transition period —taken for reasons I well understand—makes it all but impossible to negotiate the entire future relationship. The Canada-EU deal is nearly 2,000 pages long, and the future relationship is far more than an FTA. It is possible that, unlike the withdrawal agreement, it may need ratification by all the national parliaments, as well as by the European Parliament. The EU’s mandate is clear:

“The Commission should aim to achieve as much as possible during the short timeframe of the transition … and should be ready to continue negotiations on any remaining issues after the end of the transition.”


If we prioritise the key issues, it is certainly possible to negotiate a deal and reach an agreement by the end of the year.

The third and central conclusion is that both sides have moved away from the political declaration, making it harder to reach agreement. I very much agree with that, and I shall now consider the two sides in turn. First, with our Government, there are four areas in which it is undeniable that the UK’s position has changed since the political declaration. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said about the level playing field provisions, the political declaration is clear that the future relationship must include robust commitments to ensure a level playing field. That is in paragraph 77.

It is also implicit that the UK is not Canada. As paragraph 77 also says, these commitments need to be robust,

“Given the Union and the United Kingdom’s geographic proximity and economic interdependence”.


I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that this is not some sudden change in the EU’s position. I sat with the former Prime Minister in every interaction she had with EU member states, individually and through the EU institutions, from the 2017 election onwards. This was always and consistently the European Union’s position, and it is in the political declaration that this Government signed up to in the autumn.

The political declaration is also clear that the parties should uphold the common standards applicable in the Union and the UK at the end of the transition period in a whole range of areas—I will not detain the House by reading them out. It is also clear that the agreement should include appropriate mechanisms to ensure effective implementation domestically, enforcement and dispute settlement. That is what the political declaration that this Government signed up to says.

Now the Government are saying that they no longer accept the argument that the UK’s geographic proximity and economic independence necessitate more robust level playing field permissions. The Command Paper, and the Written Statement to Parliament that preceded it, state:

“The Government will not agree to measures in these areas which go beyond those typically included in a comprehensive free trade agreement.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/2020; col. 3WS.]


As a result, it appears that they are rejecting not just dynamic alignment but any enforceable, non-regression clause. I can give noble Lords one example from the UK Command Paper. It says:

“The Agreement should include reciprocal commitments not to weaken or reduce the level of protection afforded by labour laws and standards … and … these provisions should not be subject to the Agreement’s dispute resolution mechanism”.


In essence, we are asking the EU to trust us to keep our word that we do not intend to cut standards. It feels unlikely that that will work at a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, we are denying that the withdrawal agreement that we signed up to means that there will be checks when goods move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. I was going to rehearse in some detail what is in the withdrawal agreement, but the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, did so quite brilliantly; I will just make a simple point for those who remain unconvinced. If there are no checks when goods move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and no checks when goods move from Northern Ireland to Ireland, goods will move from Great Britain into the European Union without any checks. If the Prime Minister had succeeded in negotiating that, people like me would be cheering him to the rafters. That is what Theresa was trying to negotiate and achieve; she was struggling to maintain the continuous free trade in goods. It is clear that the withdrawal agreement does not provide for that.

The second area where the Government’s position has shifted is in relation to the ECHR. The political declaration says:

“The future relationship should incorporate the United Kingdom’s continued commitment to respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights”.


That is what this Government agreed to in the autumn. Now, the Command Paper says:

“The agreement should not specify how the UK or the EU Member States should protect and enforce human rights”.


That decision has critical implications for the likely level of security co-operation that we will be able to enjoy after the end of this year.

A number of noble Lords have touched on the third area: the architecture of the agreement. The political declaration says:

“The future relationship should be based on an overarching institutional framework … The Parties note that the overarching institutional framework could take the form of an Association Agreement.”


The Command Paper says that the comprehensive FTA

“should be supplemented by a range of other … agreements … All these agreements should have their own appropriate and precedented governance arrangements”.

My noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Trenchard were allergic to the idea of an association agreement. I gently point out that countries as diverse as Israel and South Africa have association agreements with the European Union. Having an association agreement with the European Union does not mean that we have not regained our sovereignty. There are other arguments that the Government may wish to advance for why they want a separate suite of agreements, but let us not mislead ourselves that an association agreement is somehow inconsistent with the decision of the British people.

The fourth area critically relates to dispute resolution. The political declaration says:

“The Parties indicate that should a dispute raise a question of interpretation of provisions or concepts of Union law … the arbitration panel should refer the question to the Court of Justice of the European Union … as the sole arbiter of Union law, for a binding ruling as regards the interpretation of Union law”.


We agreed that, but now the Command Paper says:

“The arrangements will reflect the regulatory and judicial autonomy of the UK and accordingly there will be no role for the Court of Justice … in the dispute resolution mechanism.”


During this debate, the justification that we have been given for these changes is that the Government won a huge mandate in the general election. That is true and obviously, since I am on these Benches, I welcome it. But that is not a justification for changing the position in relation to the political declaration. The message that we Conservatives took to the doorsteps in that general election was that we had an oven-ready Brexit deal: we were going to get Brexit done; the deal was done. So, that is not a justification for now changing the nature of the deal.

I turn now to the European Union. Too often in this debate, we look at our own Government and are critical if we think their position is not right. The European Union has also shifted its position in some areas—not as significantly as the British Government, as the committee’s report recognised, but, none the less, there are changes. I shall run through those in my remaining time. On the level playing field, the European Union is now saying:

“The envisaged partnership should ensure the application of Union State aid rules to and in the United Kingdom”.


This is not just dynamic alignment but the actual application of the EU’s rules in this country after the end of the transition period. It is quite understandable that the British Government are resisting that request. It also says that

“the envisaged agreement should uphold common high standards, and corresponding high standards over time with Union standards as a reference point”

in these areas. That is a clear implication, at least, of dynamic alignment.

On the ECHR, the EU has hardened its position. Its mandate now says that

“the envisaged partnership should...provide for automatic suspension if the United Kingdom were to abrogate domestic law giving effect to the ECHR, thus making it impossible for individuals to invoke the rights … before the United Kingdom’s courts.”


That is not something that was in the political declaration.

Thirdly, and crucially, the EU’s mandate refers to the date by which agreement needs to be reached on fishing. However, it does not reference two other crucial dates in the political declaration: the dates for completing assessment of equivalence on financial services and data protection. It is no accident that those dates have been left out of the EU’s mandate.

On architecture, the EU’s changes are nothing like as drastic as the British Government’s but, as the committee rightly spotted, the comprehensive air transport agreement is missing from the EU mandate and has now been rolled into an issue to be considered as part of the economic partnership.

Finally, although this is not a change from the political declaration, there is the issue of fishing. The wording on fishing in the political declaration was carefully chosen to mask the fact that the two parties were a long way apart. The EU has now stated very clearly its position that

“the provisions on fisheries should uphold existing reciprocal access conditions, quota shares and the traditional activity of the Union fleet.”


I cannot begin to count the number of occasions when I sat next to the former Prime Minister in a room with Michel Barnier, and he told us that, given the decision of the British people, things had to change. In every area, we could not expect the same relationship that we had before—that is, it turns out, apart from fishing, where nothing must change at all. This is an area where the EU’s position is clearly not reasonable.

I leave the House with two final thoughts. There has rightly been concern in this debate about whether a deal will be achieved. I gently put it to the House that, given the level of the Government’s ambition for the economic relationship, either outcome will mean an end to frictionless trade between the UK and the EU. It will mean customs controls, regulatory checks and less access for service providers. The Government’s own analysis shows that these non-tariff barriers are an order of magnitude more important than the imposition of tariffs. In other words, given the kind of deal we are now seeking as a country, and for which the Prime Minister has a clear mandate from the general election result, there is not a huge economic difference between the deal the Government are seeking and no deal.

The biggest single difference is in the security field where, during this transition period, we are maintaining the security co-operation that we had as members of the union. If we could resolve this issue in relation to the ECHR, the two parties are not that far apart with respect to maintaining as many of the capabilities as possible. Therefore, I ask the Government to think carefully about how they proceed in that area in particular.

A final thought: my noble friend Lady Noakes accused the Government I had the honour to serve of servile acquiescence in the negotiations. I gently point out to the House that the deal that this Government now seek should prove easier to negotiate with the EU than the deal that the previous Government sought. The deal this Government seek is very close to what the EU wanted to offer UK if it was not prepared to stay in the single market and the customs union. Far from servile acquiescence, the previous Government were trying to create a unique model between a standard FTA and a single market and customs union.

For all the concerns that many will have about the change in our relationship—it is coming, whether we get a deal or not, on 1 January—the two parties are not as far apart as they would be if we were trying to pursue a more ambitious arrangement. I will not detain your Lordships any more and thank you for the opportunity to contribute.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

When prices outstrip wages, it is really important to cut people’s taxes, and that is what we have done by delivering a tax cut to 25 million working people, lifting the personal allowance and giving people a £700 tax cut. We have been able to do that only because we have taken tough decisions on spending, tough decisions on welfare and tough decisions on the deficit—tough decisions that the Leader of the Opposition has wrongly rejected.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

When the Labour party left government, 770 young people in my constituency were out of work. Today, there are just 585, and we now have Westfield and Hammerson proposing to invest £1.5 billion to transform our town centre and create thousands of jobs. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss how the Government can help with the infrastructure improvements that will end the scourge of youth unemployment in our town that we inherited from the last Government?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we still have more work to do to get young people into work. Overall, however, 1.4 million more people are now employed in the private sector and we have a historic, record level of women in employment, and the number of people in work is almost up by 1 million since the election, with unemployment lower than at the election and long-term unemployment down on a year ago. We still have more work to do, but we are heading in the right direction. We have to keep on track and keep working to help business to take people on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the work of the National Citizen Service.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the work of the National Citizen Service.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the work of the National Citizen Service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend’s young constituents got so much out of the experience. She will be delighted to know that 26,000 young people took part in NCS last year and our public intention is to make 150,000 places available in 2016. I hope that reassures her of our intention to make this fantastic experience available to many more 16 and 17-year-olds.

[Gavin Barwell]

Over the summer I had the opportunity to meet three groups of young people from my constituency who took part in the programme, which is run so well by The Challenge Network in my part of the country. What more can the Government do to encourage even more schools to get their pupils to take part in this excellent scheme?

[Mr Hurd]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend also had such a good experience with his local NCS. I am delighted to have it confirmed regularly that young people are now recommending it to each other, which, as he knows, is the way that it will grow. We continue to evangelise in schools, but it is fantastic that young people are now talking to each other on Facebook and Twitter and saying, “You should do this.”

Afghanistan and EU Council

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree that the creation of private sector jobs is absolutely key, particularly for those countries that have large budget deficits. We have seen the decline of public sector jobs, but perhaps three times as many private sector jobs have been created. To achieve that, we need to rebalance our economy and to trade more, so, particularly as the European Union is a low-growth area—or a no-growth area in terms of the eurozone—we must look for new trading partners. That is why we should be look at countries such as Kazakhstan, where we are the second largest investor but where trade volumes are quite low. That is why we need, as I have put it, to compete in the global race and forge partnerships with all of the fastest growing countries of the world.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition rightly mentioned youth unemployment, which has fallen by 15% in my constituency since Labour left office. One way to drive it down further is to expand the single market, so I welcome what the Prime Minister said about accession negotiations with Serbia. Does he agree that the long-term aim should be an EU from the Atlantic to the Urals, but that if the EU is to include more diverse countries, it needs to change fundamentally?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend says. Britain has always believed in a wider, looser Europe and it is that that we should be fighting for. As he says, if we want it to be that sort of Europe, it must make changes and must be more flexible. The countries in the eurozone will need greater integration, but if we are to be attractive to other countries as a European Union, we must be more flexible and competitive.

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust (Inquiry)

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very important point. If we are going to challenge complacency and have more frankness and openness about potential failure, we also need to have the more grown-up attitude that failure in one part of one hospital does not necessarily mean that the other parts are failing.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Like the Prime Minister, I have a personal debt to the NHS: it saved my life when I had cancer as a child. As a constituency MP, I regularly deal with concerns about the quality of care at Croydon University hospital. With that in mind, I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly his focus on the key measure of how well a hospital is serving its community—that is, the proportion of people working there who would be happy for a family member to be treated there.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I am not claiming that the friends and family test is the only change that needs to happen in the NHS, but if we are looking for something that will provide a pretty effective traffic light, then having that test, and having its results plastered over every ward in every hospital in the country, will be a pretty good start. The chilling statistic that only a quarter of staff members at Stafford would have been happy for their relatives to be treated in the hospital that they themselves worked in should have been the moment—publicised on every ward, in the local newspaper, and on the door of the hospital—when everyone said, “Hold on a minute: we’ve got to take some action here.”

Algeria

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. They are terrorists and they should be described as such. This was a terrorist attack to take hostages and kill innocent people, and it should be condemned utterly.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will be aware of research showing a worrying level of Islamophobia in this country. With that in mind, as an MP representing a constituency with a significant Muslim community, may I warmly welcome his clear statement that the generational conflict in which we are engaged is not between the west and Islam, but between people of all faiths who want to live in peace and those who would resort to terror?

[The Prime Minister]

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right and should form part of every speech and statement made about this issue. This is not a clash of civilisations; it is all people against a very small minority who are poisoned by that ideology. It is worth making the point that the biggest number of victims of al-Qaeda violence are Muslim men and women. That remains the case, and we cannot make that point too often.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Miss Chloe Smith)]

I support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). It is of a minor and technical nature and it builds on the amendments to the Juries Act 1974 under clause 2 of the Bill. The Government are happy to accept the amendment, which, although it is technical and does not affect the substance of the Bill, is very important in terms of presentation because through its inclusion the Bill will more fully reflect the intention that we all share in this House of removing legislative provisions that prevent people from participating fully in society merely because they have a mental health condition.

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) that there are indeed measures that would still allow a person called for jury service to indicate that they felt unable to carry it out. I shall be happy to provide any further information that he requires on that.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said, I am happy to support his amendment. I hope that he will not be embarrassed but I congratulate him on the expert way in which he described the technical effects of the amendment so clearly. Given his ability to do so, I think it is only a matter of time before he is summoned to the Front Bench. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) clearly explained his rationale for supporting the amendment.

As I said on Second Reading, the Bill has two purposes. In certain clearly defined areas, it seeks to remove legislative provisions that prevent people from contributing to various aspects of our public life, but its wider aim is to challenge the stigma that people with mental health conditions experience in our society and to send a wider message beyond this House to society as whole. It is therefore absolutely essential to get the language right. That is why I support the amendment.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), the provision that he has in mind does exist. Anyone summoned for jury service is entitled to request an excusal or deferral by completing the relevant section of the summons form. Such applications are then considered by officers of the Jury Central Summoning Bureau.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Third Reading

[Gavin Barwell]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I will speak only briefly because we had a very full debate on the Bill on Second Reading and a good debate in Committee.

I want to underline the importance of this Bill and what it is seeking to achieve. Over the period of my adult lifetime, this House has passed important legislation to deal with other areas of discrimination such as race relations, gender and sexual orientation, but on mental health there remain on the statute book several provisions that are openly stigmatising and serve no good purpose in terms of public policy. The Bill tries to bring the law of this country into the 21st century by removing those provisions so that people with mental health conditions can serve on juries and contribute to our criminal justice system. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred to the nonsensical situation of people who are able to practise as solicitors in our courts of law but unable to serve on a jury.

The Bill also makes changes in relation to company directors. A provision in the model rules says that if somebody lacks capacity, as judged by their GP, they can lose their position as a company director. That is another provision relating solely to mental health that is wholly unnecessary and stigmatising.

Finally, and just as important, the Bill amends the provisions relating to a Member of Parliament who is detained under the mental health legislation for a period of six months or more. No equivalent provision exists in relation to preventing those with physical conditions from serving. Indeed, Members can be sentenced to prison for longer than six months and not lose their position in this House. The Bill deals with those issues, but I hope that it also sends a much wider message to society about the need for a change in attitudes to those with mental health conditions.

I conclude by expressing my thanks to a few people for their support on the Bill. First, I thank Lord Stevenson of Coddenham, who in the previous Session introduced a very similar Bill in the other place that sadly was unable to complete its passage owing to a lack of parliamentary time. I thank Mind, Rethink Mental Illness and the Royal College of Psychiatrists for their support and the background work that they have done on the Bill and the wider campaign that they have been running, Time to Change, which is trying to change attitudes towards those who experience mental illness.

Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister and the officials in the Cabinet Office who have provided very welcome help and support, and those in my own office. Members on both sides of the House will know of the huge contribution that our staff make in supporting the work that we do as Members of this House. I am hugely grateful for all that help. I hope that today the House will see the completion of the passage of this Bill, which will be a welcome landmark statement that attitudes towards those with mental health conditions are changing. I also hope that it will have speedy passage through the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell]

With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and to make one final point. I have a very high regard for my hon. Friend. As he said, we do not agree on every issue, but he is an excellent Member of this House. He made two points and I thought it was worth making one further point in response. He asked about the value of repealing legislation if it has never been used. There is a danger with the law as it currently stands of an hon. Member with a health condition being reluctant to seek medical treatment because of the consequences—the risk of losing their job.

The Speaker’s Conference recommended that a Select Committee might look at how the wider issue of the lack of constituents’ representation if their MP has a serious mental or physical health condition is addressed beyond the informal arrangements to which the Minister referred.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

That is a problem because, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) said, I think most parties will put informal arrangements in place, as they do for MPs who suffer from long-term physical conditions, or those who take holidays on reality TV shows in Australia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman seeks to draw me somewhere I do not wish to go—neither intellectually nor physically, I should say, in case any of my constituents are watching. I have direct experience of the point that he and the Minister made about informal arrangements. My predecessor as the hon. Member for Croydon Central suffered some difficulties with his mental health and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) covered both his office here in this House and his surgery and other duties during that period. Those arrangements can certainly work, but from the point at which I introduced the Bill people have contacted me and made the point that the hon. Member for Shipley makes. It is well worth a Select Committee looking at those issues and deciding whether the informal arrangements are sufficient, or whether there should be other rules.

The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) teased me mildly in his remarks about the results of the Croydon North by-election. The by-election has a relevance to this issue. It was a good result for Labour and I look forward to Steve Reed taking his seat, but the swing was significantly less than in the other by-elections we have had recently and in the national opinion polls. The reason for that was the Conservative party candidate. In his gracious concession speech, Andy Stranack made the point that, as someone who suffers from cerebral palsy, he hoped that one of the lessons of his campaign was that he had not in any way not been able to run a robust, energetic, effective campaign and do the job expected of a parliamentary candidate.

That is relevant to the debate, because I want to end by saying a word or two about the hon. Member for North Durham and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). Their courage, in the debate we had earlier this year on mental health, in talking about their own experiences, and in their participation in this House on this business and on other issues, demonstrates visibly that those who experience mental health difficulties are just as able as anybody else to fulfil the duties of being a Member of this House. That sends an important message and point to the country as a whole as we try to change attitudes and perceptions.

I do not want to detain the House any further, but I want to end, if the hon. Member for North Durham will forgive me, by saying something about my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne in particular. When my name came high up in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, I was inundated by e-mails and phone calls suggesting issues that I might like to take up. Some might have found favour with my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, and others might have been less well regarded. A key reason for choosing this issue was my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. He came to my office and explained to me for about half an hour why he regarded it as being of such importance. In the two and a half years I have been in the House, I never heard anyone speak with such passion about the subject and about the effect that legislation can have. My name is on the Bill and I hope it will go on to become an Act, but one of the people who deserves enormous credit for reaching this point is my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and his passion for this issue. I think that that is a fitting point on which to end my remarks.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, no one wants to prejudge the wisdom of the Greater Manchester electorate, but I wish the hon. Gentleman well, if he is successful. I make to him the point that I hope the chief constable of his own force will make to him. It was made very effectively when Chief Constable Fahy of Greater Manchester police said that

“the effectiveness of policing cannot be measured by the number of officers…but by reductions in crime”.

Crime in Greater Manchester is down 12%. We need to recognise that there are difficult decisions. Frankly, the Labour party was committed to even greater cuts in police budgets than we have delivered. The key is this: can we crack down on paperwork, can we help get the police out on the beat, can we help them do the job they do and can we cut crime? The answer, in this case, is, “Yes, we can.”

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Q14. May I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to Malcolm Wicks, whose memorial service is at Croydon minster this Friday? He was an outstanding local MP, a thoughtful, decent man and a good friend. Is not one way in which we can honour his memory to continue to improve our national health service, so that more and more people beat cancer and do not have their lives so tragically cut short?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend speaks for the whole House in what he says about Malcolm Wicks. I understand that he often used to drive Malcolm home to Croydon after the vote—I think Malcolm referred to his car as “the cab”. The fare apparently was a bottle of wine at Christmas time—we will make sure the Inland Revenue lays off that, but it was a very good arrangement between Members.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: one of the greatest things we can do to remember Malcolm is to ensure the continued success of the cancer drugs fund, which has helped over 20,000 people, and make sure that people can get urgent treatments, as well as urgent drugs.

Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Bill

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am presenting this Bill today because I was lucky enough to be drawn fourth in the private Members’ ballot. As is often the case in this place, I discovered that not through any official communication but because my inbox was suddenly deluged with e-mails of congratulation and my mobile phone and landline started ringing at the same time. It is good that a reshuffle was not taking place at the time.

It is rare for a Back Bencher to have the opportunity to change the law of the country. I received hundreds of good suggestions—some more realistic than others—and I took my time and thought long and hard before making my choice. I chose mental health for three reasons, the first of which is that it affects so many people. One in four of us will experience a mental health condition in our lifetime, and three in four will see a member of our immediate family experience such a condition. Those numbers have been increasing, and will continue to do so, because although the physical conditions in which we live and work have improved, our lives are busier and more stressful. The World Health Organisation estimates that by 2030 more people will be affected by depression than by any other health condition.

Secondly, beyond those headline figures I have seen at first hand how people struggle with mental ill health, and how hard they often find discussing it, even with those to whom they are close. Two of my closest personal friends suffer from mental health conditions, as do two former teachers with whom I have kept in touch. Sadly, both had to retire early, thereby depriving other young people of their excellent tuition. My predecessor as Member of Parliament for Croydon Central, Andrew Pelling, had to take leave of absence from this House in early 2008, although crucially in terms of what we are discussing he was able to return to work and do a good job for his constituents.

Since I became a Member of this House, numerous constituents with mental health conditions have come to me for help—I imagine that all hon. Members currently have constituents who are distressed and struggling with Atos work capability assessments. Two specific cases stick in my mind. The first was a man who came to my surgery because he had lost his job and was at risk of losing his home. He broke down in tears in the middle of the appointment, and openly discussed committing suicide. The second was a resident of a south London YMCA property in my constituency who had witnessed someone committing suicide. He went to his GP for help and was effectively told to get over it. He then suffered a breakdown, lost his job and his marriage, and ended up sleeping on a park bench. Anything we can do—even in a small way—to help people suffering with such conditions must be good.

The third reason I chose mental health was that it has a particularly passionate advocate in the form of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who is sitting in front of me. I hope that he will speak later in the debate so that hon. Members who have not heard him discuss the issue will see that passion for themselves.

My Bill’s purpose is simple: to tackle the last legal form of discrimination in our society. Over the course of my adult life we have made significant progress in tackling racism, sexism and homophobia. Parliament changed the law and sent a clear signal, and, although things are still far from perfect, attitudes have changed. To our shame, however, the law still discriminates against those with a mental health condition. A Member of Parliament or company director can be removed from their job because of mental ill health, even if they go on to make a full recovery, and many people who are perfectly capable of performing jury service are ineligible to do so. As it stands, the law sends out a clear message that if someone has a mental health condition, their contribution to public life is not welcome, and that is an affront to a decent, civilised society.

The Labour party deserves credit for its legislation to tackle other forms of discrimination: the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Civil Partnership Act 2004. The Conservative party initially lagged behind on those issues, but it can be proud of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and I hope that the coalition Government will pass legislation to tackle this remaining form of discrimination against those with mental ill health.

The belief that people should be treated as individuals and judged on their merits, and that they should not face stigma and discrimination, is common to all mainstream parties. I believe that, if the Bill gains Royal Assent, we will look back in a few years’ time and be amazed that it took until 2012 to do it.

The Bill is supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Mind and Rethink Mental Illness. I thank them, my assistant Mario Creatura and the Public Bill Office for all their help. The provisions were originally introduced in the other place by Lord Stevenson of Coddenham in the previous Session. He—not I—deserves the credit for raising the issue.

Lord Stevenson’s Bill had four clear aims, the first of which was to repeal section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983, under which a Member of Parliament—including Members of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies—automatically loses their seat if they are detained under the Act for more than six months. There is no equivalent provision for peers, neither is there an equivalent provision if an MP suffers from a physical illness that affects their ability to perform their role. The law, therefore, is clearly discriminatory. It stigmatises those with mental health conditions and gives the false impression that people cannot recover from such conditions.

In the Law Society’s opinion, the law may well breach the UN convention of the rights of persons with disabilities, which the UK ratified in 2009. Article 29 of the convention states that Governments should ensure

“that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others, directly or through freely chosen representatives, including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and be elected”.

There is also a grave danger that the law will deter Members from admitting to having a mental health condition and from seeking treatment, which would be a tragedy. Ludicrously, the law is harsher than that relating to MPs who are sent to prison, which does not take effect unless an MP is sentenced to more than a year.

Finally, an MP who lacks mental capacity, as defined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005, can be detained for up to 12 months and not lose their seat. The law is therefore also a nonsense. It has never been used in its current form, but back in 1916, Dr Charles Leach MP was removed from his seat using the provisions of predecessor legislation, the Lunacy (Vacating Seats) Act 1886.

As you will know, Mr Speaker, in January 2010, the Speaker’s Conference on parliamentary representation recommended that the law should be changed. Clearly, there is a debate to be had on what should happen if an MP is unable to perform their role for an extended period. The Speaker’s Conference recommended that the House invite an appropriate Select Committee to undertake an inquiry. In the meantime, my contention is very simple: the current law is both discriminatory and an ass, and we should put that right while we consider the wider issue.

No less an authority than “Parker’s Law and Conduct of Elections” says that, as well as statute, there is common law that

“idiots are disqualified for election to Parliament”,

which may come as news to some of our constituents. Nevertheless, to guard against the unlikely event that the courts would interpret that as a reference to those with mental health conditions, clause 1(2) of the Bill abolishes any such common law.

The second aim of Lord Stevenson’s Bill was to amend school governance regulations, so that people detained under the Mental Health Acts would no longer be disqualified from holding office as school governors. Clearly, someone who is detained is unable to attend governors’ meetings, but that may be for only a short time, and there is no reason that they should not resume their role once they are able to do so.

The third aim was to amend the Juries Act 1974, which applies only to England and Wales, to reduce significantly and better to define who is ineligible for jury service. Currently, as many hon. Members will know, the Act says that mentally disordered persons are ineligible. The definition of a mentally disordered person is extremely wide and includes people who manage their mental health condition through a prescription from their general practitioner or counselling from a psychiatrist. For example, a woman suffering from post-natal depression who is prescribed anti-depressants would—ludicrously—be barred from serving on a jury. Theoretically, that eliminates all sorts of people who would make excellent jurors. In practice, the definition is so wide many people who probably should tick the box do not do so, perhaps including some who genuinely should not be jurors. A person on trial has a right to be confident that the jury is of sound mind. The Bill would better define who should be ineligible broadly in line with the current law in Scotland, thus making it much more likely that such people would identify themselves correctly.

The final aim of the Bill is to amend the Companies (Model Articles) Regulations 2008, so that someone no longer ceases to be a director of a public or private company purely because of their mental health. All companies are required by statute to have articles of association. Model articles operate when a company has failed to draw up its own. Many companies incorporate them into their articles. The model articles include a provision that someone ceases to be a director if a registered medical practitioner who is treating them gives a written opinion to the company stating that they have become physically or mentally incapable of acting as a director and may remain so for more than three months—in other words, the correct test of capacity. However, the articles also include a totally unnecessary, stigmatising provision relating solely to mental health, which my Bill would remove.

The Government have already dealt with one of those aims. The School Governance (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 came into force on 17 March and rightly set the disqualification test for school governors as failure to attend meetings for a period of six months without consent from the governing body. That puts the onus on the local governing body to make decisions on whether someone is capable of continuing their duties. The Government recently confirmed that they would support the other measures in Lord Stevenson’s Bill, subject to some small changes to the provisions relating to jury service, to which I have agreed.

I hope my hon. Friend the Minister does not mind if I pay tribute to her predecessor, who is now the Minister for Immigration, who first raised these issues when the Conservative party was in opposition and who played a key role in securing Government support for the Bill. I thank the Deputy Prime Minister—he cannot be in the House today—who has a long-standing interest in these issues and who has been vocal in his support for the Bill. I also thank civil servants in the Cabinet Office for their help with the detailed drafting and explanatory notes. Finally, before this turns into an Oscar acceptance speech, I thank the official Opposition for their support, and in particular the shadow Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who has already distinguished himself this week in relation to the Hillsborough panel, and whose passion for health issues is self-evident. I thank all hon. Members who have taken time away from their constituency duties to be in the House today to support the measure.

I shall end with three simple contentions. First, the law as it stands sends an appalling message to people with mental health conditions. Charlotte was diagnosed with depression and clinical anxiety in 2003. In 2008, she received a summons to undertake jury service. At the time, she was working as a probation officer and therefore had extensive experience of both magistrates and Crown courts. She declared her condition and explained that she had not seen a psychiatrist for four years and was no longer seeing her GP, and that she was merely picking up repeat prescriptions once every three months. She received a brief message saying she was unsuitable for jury service. She says:

“I felt angry and disappointed...I was very much well enough to cope...and my GP would have been happy to confirm this”.

Angela was told she was ineligible for jury service in 2009 because she sees her doctor three times a year for depression. She says:

“in my early days of mental illness, I would not have been able to sit on a jury. Now I have recovered and gone back to work in research at a university. This blanket ban means that I can’t do my civic duty. It basically implies that I have nothing to offer society because I have a mental health condition, without any regard to how I am actually functioning now. This is totally outrageous”.

I could not agree more.

Secondly, if the Bill is passed, companies, our courts and Parliament will benefit directly from the involvement of more people with experience of mental health conditions. The recent Backbench Business Committee debate on mental health, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who now thankfully sits on the Front Bench, was illuminated in particular by the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), both of whom I am glad to see in the Chamber today.

Thirdly, and most importantly, passing the Bill will send a clear message that discrimination is wrong and that people have a right to be judged as individuals, not stigmatised or discriminated against.

If anyone doubts the extent of the problem, I would point them to last September’s excellent Time to Change campaign, run by Mind and Rethink Mental Illness, which surveyed 2,700 people with mental health conditions. Eighty per cent. said that they had experienced discrimination, two thirds were too scared to tell their employer about their condition, 62% were too scared to tell their friends and, worst of all, more than one third were too scared to seek professional help.

Ensuring that fewer people experience stigma and discrimination is rightly one of the key objectives of the Government’s mental health strategy, “No Health without Mental Health”. As a Conservative, I believe that changing the law does not change society overnight, but it does send a clear signal that this Parliament believes that having a mental health condition is nothing to be ashamed of or to keep secret. It is high time that we dragged the law of the land into the 21st century, and I humbly ask hon. Members to support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I would like to say a few words to sum up the debate. First, I welcome to the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is a good friend. When he arrived, he told me that he had been following proceedings closely, and I asked whether he had also been following them with approval. As he correctly pointed out, if it had been with disapproval, he would have been here talking for two and a half hours.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, including the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and for North Durham (Mr Jones), and my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) made an encouragingly brief speech, at least from my point of view. If my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip has been following proceedings—I am sure the duty Whip will have noted this—he will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North cannot find his way into the Chamber without his contact lenses. I thank the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) and my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) for their contributions. All the speeches were excellent, and I believe that today’s debate has shown the House at its best.

Due to the changes in the rules and proceedings of the House, not only have I listened to the speeches, but I have followed the reaction to our debate on social media. What has happened in the Chamber means a lot to a great many people and I may well get in touch with hon. Members who have spoken to ask whether they would like to serve on the Committee.

I thank the two Front-Bench speakers, and in particular I echo the point raised by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about dementia. I lost my father to Alzheimer’s disease, and although Governments of both colours have made real strides in recent years, we still need to do a lot more to tackle that issue. My hon. Friend the Minister is new to her brief, but she showed a good grasp of all the issues the debate covers. To reassure the hon. Member for North Durham, it was good to see a Health Minister and a Justice Minister on the Front Bench earlier in the debate.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My only concern is that the Cabinet Office Minister said that the Bill has the full support of the Deputy Prime Minister, and his recent track record of getting legislation through is not very good.

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me into the debate on House of Lords reform, on which not necessarily all my colleagues agree with my views, but I will not return to it.

I should like to emphasise a few points from the debate. First, there is a consensus in the House that changing the law in and of itself does not change society overnight, but it does send a clear signal. Such changes have happened in my adult lifetime. When I was a child, an Asian family tried to buy a house in our road—they would have been the first Asian family to do so. Disgustingly, some of the people on our road tried to persuade the family who were considering selling the house not to sell to an Asian family. When that barrier was broken and that first Asian family moved into the road, people found that they were normal, decent people, and the problem went away overnight. Attitudes on race have changed a great deal, although not enough.

I also recall with great shame my teenage attitudes on sexuality—attitudes of which I am not proud. Attitudes in society to sexuality have also changed a great deal, and we need to change attitudes to mental health. When I was growing up, my perception was that mental health problems affected very few people. As I said, two of my close personal friends over the past 20 years have been affected by mental health conditions. I now see how many people are affected by it, because that includes their friends and family. It is not a case of people either having a mental condition or being perfectly healthy; there is a continuum.

Secondly, the hon. Member for North Durham paid tribute to a number of public figures who have been open about their conditions. He mentioned Alastair Campbell, the former Prime Minister’s press secretary, who has spoken out repeatedly—he is very brave to have done so given the high profile role he had. I should like to mention a sporting figure, Marcus Trescothick, who has shown incredible courage. I have read his autobiography, which is an extremely moving account of his experiences. We have debates on mental health in the House, but it also means a great deal when those who have a high profile in other spheres of public life take the decision to talk openly and honestly about their experiences.

Thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman said, people need to tell those close to them about their condition, but the reaction they get might not be what they expect. I have been on a variety of TV and radio shows to talk about and promote the Bill. I will never forget a phone-in on Iain Dale’s show on London’s Biggest Conversation. A number of calls we took were from people suffering from profound depression and other mental health conditions. One caller could not believe that any of the people in his life would want anything more to do with him if he explained to them how he was feeling. My message, as the friend of two people who have mental health conditions, was that friends will want to know and to provide care and support. If they do not want to do so, they are not proper friends. I therefore conclude, as the hon. Gentleman did, by saying that people who are suffering should know that those who care enough will want to know and to provide help and support.

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate and those who have listened to our proceedings. I very much hope the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Hillsborough

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady speaks with huge force and power and I agree with her every word. After truth has to come justice. For the families, nothing can bring back the loved ones they have lost, but I hope that, by revealing all this information and by the panel’s patient work in highlighting just how many things they were right about and the authorities were wrong about, they will be able to find greater peace in their hearts about their appalling losses. You never get back the loved ones you have lost, but at some stage you want at least some of the clouds to part and to see that you have got to the truth.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an incredibly moving statement—as on the Saville inquiry, he struck exactly the right tone—and the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on setting up the panel. When the Government have had a chance to study the full report, will the Prime Minister report back to the House on whether it sheds any light on why the Taylor inquiry did not have access to all the documents; why it did not examine the response of the emergency services; and what went wrong with the original inquest? Surely one of the ways in which we can honour the memory of the 96 is to ensure that, when future tragedies occur, people do not have to wait this long to find out the truth about how their loved ones died.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the key questions, which are for Government to consider, because we are responsible for how these processes work. I do not have the answer today. Public inquiries and coroners’ inquests are supposed to get to the truth. They did not on this occasion and we have to answer why.