Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Christine Jardine

Tuesday 30th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am advised that the meeting is, I think, today.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Many of my constituents have written to me concerned that the UK is delaying its ratification of the global ocean treaty, which could limit human activity in what would be known as sanctuary areas in order to protect valuable marine life. Has a Minister made an assessment of how that could work with the blue belt programme to ensure that our overseas territories have the highest possible protection for their water and their biodiversity?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. The Government are extremely well joined up on that—I made the point earlier about the DEFRA Minister working closely with the Foreign Office on these matters—so I think she can reassure her constituents that that matter is very much in hand.

Israel and Gaza

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Christine Jardine

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman has served at a senior level in government and knows what Governments do and do not publish. However, he can rest assured that when we receive advice on international humanitarian law, we look at it extremely carefully, and when the Law Officers make their judgments on this matter, we come to the House and update it. That is what we will do in due course.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Many of us in this place have been calling since November for the release of the hostages, the removal of Hamas, an immediate bilateral ceasefire, and humanitarian aid. Sometimes, it seems the only thing that has changed is that the situation has got worse for people in Gaza. My constituents write to me constantly. They feel that the Israeli Government are ignoring pleas, and that the people of Palestine have been abandoned. The Minister said that he would do whatever it took in this situation —I have every respect for him and believe him when he says that.

Does the Minister accept that one of the biggest barriers to peace is illegal Israeli settlement in the west bank? Recently, there were sanctions against four Israeli settlers who had committed human rights abuses against Palestinians. The Liberal Democrats hope that that is just the start. Will the UK Government consider sanctioning Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who promote that extremist agenda, and all the settler movements connected to them in a way that finally makes a difference to what is happening?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady will be aware that Britain has consistently condemned settler violence. We have made it clear that we expect those responsible to be caught, arrested, tried and punished for it, and we will continue to do so. As she mentions, four settlers have been sanctioned. We do not discuss on the Floor of the House the operations of the sanctions regime, but she may rest assured that the opinion of the Government is that the settlements and the acts that she described are illegal, and we will do everything we can to ensure that they stop.

Israel and Gaza

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Christine Jardine

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The earlier part of the hon. Lady’s question underlines the fact that these issues should not be resolved at the whim of Ministers but through the arms export Committee, which is both independent and legally advised. It is the toughest regime in the world and Ministers should look to it for guidance, which we do.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I hope the Minister will agree that there is clear consensus in this House that we want an end to the horror that we are seeing in Gaza and to the misery of the Israeli families who are missing those taken hostage. The Minister has made a great deal of the fact that a humanitarian pause is all that can be achieved, but that it can be a route to a ceasefire. We are hearing promising noises from the talks that there may be a pause in hostilities. While that is not enough, can the Minister assure us that our Government will do everything they can to reflect the will of this place and the people we represent in pursuing an end to the horror in Gaza and the long-term establishment of a two-state solution in the middle east?

[Mr Mitchell]

I can assure the hon. Lady. Her point underlines the degree of agreement rather than disagreement across this House. She said that the Government believe that a pause is all that can be achieved, but that is not the case. The Government believe that a pause will enable us to get the hostages out and aid and support in. It is part of the journey towards a sustainable ceasefire. It is certainly not all that we believe can be achieved, but it is necessary for the other things that we want to achieve.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Christine Jardine

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and entirely right that Israel has an absolute right of self-defence in this matter. On the options to which he alludes, I can assure him that a great deal of thought is going on, not only in Britain but across the region and elsewhere.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

A lasting peace and a two-state solution is the only way to guarantee dignity and security for both Palestinians and Israelis. Hamas, a terrorist organisation, cannot be part of that, but a month after their contemptable attack on Israel, it is clear that a military solution is not working. It is not removing Hamas, and instead we have the humanitarian catastrophe to which the Minister referred. Does he agree that the way to achieve that peace and a two-state solution is to back a political solution with an immediate bilateral ceasefire, explicitly contingent on both parties adhering to it, so that if one party breaks the ceasefire, a military operation remains on the table?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is entirely right about the importance of a political solution. She knows the position of the Government and Members on the Opposition Front Bench on the issue of ceasefires, but I hope she will draw some comfort from the emphasis on extended pauses that we are now seeing. On the politics, I remind her that the great progress that was made at Oslo, which brought things so tantalisingly close, took place on the back of the first intifada.

Dignity in Dying

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Christine Jardine

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and I will come directly to that.

My aim in this debate is not to persuade all colleagues of the rightness of this cause but to make two clear points: first, that this is a debate about the real-life consequences of our blanket ban on assisted dying; and secondly, that there are real examples from overseas of how it can be done better.

In the past several days, we have seen the rules on international travel tighten once again; in the space of a week, the Swiss Government closed their borders to travellers from the UK unless they undertook a quarantine of 10 days, before changing the rules back a few days later. The dismay that that has caused people seeking an assisted death in Switzerland is overwhelming, with their having to spend their final days confined to a hotel room, scrambling to update plans when time and energy are in such short supply, and unable to have all—or perhaps any—of their loved ones there to accompany them. The already cruel situation where British citizens can have the death they want only if they travel to another country becomes yet more unacceptable when even that most exceptional option can be withdrawn with such short notice. That is not to blame Switzerland; it is the fault of our own failure as a country to provide that option at home, preferring to outsource our compassion to another country.

Last year, I raised the question of travel during the pandemic with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. He confirmed that the ban on travelling overseas did not apply to those travelling for an assisted death in another country. That announcement was a welcome relief to many, although it once again highlights our heavy reliance on other jurisdictions to provide our own citizens with the deaths that they want.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Mitchell]

I will get a little further with my case, and then I will certainly give way.

Furthermore, this leniency does nothing for those who cannot afford a trip to Switzerland; who cannot access the necessary medical records; who cannot travel due to illness or disability; or who cannot access the services of Dignitas for a host of other reasons. It forces all those who accompany the dying person to break the law and run the risk of prosecution on their return to this country.

I am saddened to tell the House that David Peace has today died at Dignitas; it is a coincidence that he happened to die today. Many colleagues may have seen a touching interview with David over the summer, in which he spoke about his desire to control his death, rather than let motor neurone disease choose his death for him. Earlier this week, before he left this country—his home—for Switzerland, David said:

“I have terminal motor neurone disease, a fatal illness for which there is no treatment or cure. It has robbed me of my ability to speak, swallow, balance and walk. It is rampaging through my body, paralysing my muscles. Nothing will stop it. Palliative care cannot give me the death I want, I simply want the right to die on my own terms...My only option has been to plan an assisted death at Dignitas in Switzerland, which I have done in meticulous detail over the past few months. Though stressful and hugely expensive, this has given me comfort and peace of mind. Covid-19 measures have been a real concern throughout this year, knowing that travel restrictions or lockdowns could jeopardise my plans”.

He continued:

“The emotional and logistical nightmare I have endured over the past few days would have been avoided entirely under the Assisted Dying Bill, which would have enabled me to go peacefully and with dignity in my own home at a time of my choosing.”

David’s call is echoed by another proud Englishmen, Ray Illingworth, the legendary English and Yorkshire cricketer, who was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer a year ago. He said this of having to go abroad to obtain an assisted death:

“If that was the only option I would, but we shouldn’t have to do that. I’d like to be put to sleep in peace in my own home in Yorkshire.”

Ray has represented his country, and is now asking his country to help him have the choice of dying on his own terms.

Those who cannot travel to Switzerland have only a few agonising choices here at home. For many, our world-leading palliative and end-of-life care will ensure a peaceful and dignified death, but even with the very best care, 17 people a day will die in excruciating pain, to say nothing of those who die with uncontrollable symptoms, or without dignity in their final days. For those who wish to hasten their death, the option remains open of withdrawing from life-sustaining treatment, or voluntarily stopping eating and drinking with the intention of hastening death; but there is no option to take direct steps to end one’s own life with medical support.

Perhaps most tragic are the cases in which dying people, trapped in pain and despair, decide to end their life by suicide. The best estimates are that hundreds of suicides every year are of people living with a terminal illness. I know from speaking to people who have direct experience of losing their loved one to suicide that these dreadful decisions are taken not lightly, but as a last, desperate choice, due to the lack of a safeguarded assisted dying option.

We must be honest about recognising the victims of our laws—the dozens of our citizens who feel they must travel overseas to achieve the death that is right for them; the hundreds of terminally ill people who die by their own hand; and the thousands of people who die beyond the reach of the very best end-of-life care we can offer. Every year, we condemn too many people to becoming casualties of a law that lacks compassion and public support, and belongs to a bygone age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech on a highly emotive issue. He mentioned Liam McArthur’s Bill in the Scottish Parliament, which was the subject of consultation, and there is movement in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the reticence of some Members or their reluctance still to make their minds up. Does he share my hope that they will take confidence from what is happening in the Scottish Parliament and the support among the public to have the courage of their convictions, if and when legislation comes before this place?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her intervention. It must be the case, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) will agree, that all Members of Parliament will be following what happens in Scotland with the greatest possible care. It is an issue that, wherever we stand on the debate, greatly exercises Members of the House of Commons.

I wish to draw colleagues’ attention to the process envisaged by the Scottish Parliament for a debate on this issue. A proposal has been lodged in the Parliament and the initial consultation will close in two weeks’ time. In the new year there will be an analysis of the responses to the consultation, which will feed into the drafting of the Bill. Once drafted, the Bill will be examined in detail by Select Committees, calling for evidence from stakeholders across society. Only once that pre-legislative scrutiny has been completed will the legislation be debated on the floor of their Parliament.

Here in this House we lack anything like such a comprehensive system. Our system for considering private Members’ legislation is entirely inadequate when debating such an important issue. The Government have rightly determined that it should be neutral on the principle of assisted dying, but I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise that neutrality on the legislative process, rather than on the principle, has the effect of siding with the status quo. A refusal to facilitate the debate is a de facto opposition to law change.

Finally, I will ask the Minister some questions about specifics of how the laws in neighbouring jurisdictions would work together. As she will no doubt be aware, the General Medical Council, the Nursing and Midwifery Council and other healthcare regulators operate on a UK-wide basis. Can she confirm that if either Jersey or Scotland were to legalise assisted dying, any health and care professional who participated in and followed the requirements of that law would not face prosecution?

The Minister may also be aware that the issue of conscientious objection has previously been treated as a reserved matter by the Scottish Parliament. It should be common ground that, whatever our view on assisted dying, health and care professionals should not have to actively participate in the practice if they believe it contravenes their conscience and beliefs. I understand that the Government’s position is that conscientious objection is in fact already within the competence of the Scottish Parliament: can she confirm to the House that that is the case, and to what extent any legislation on conscientious objection in the Scottish Parliament would contravene the devolution settlement or require the approval of the UK Government?

Finally, I ask the Minister to update the House on the work commissioned by the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), to be undertaken by the Office of National Statistics on the number of terminally ill people who end their own lives by suicide. All of us in this House wish to tackle and reduce the number of suicides, attempted suicides and incidents of self-harm, but in order to do that, it is imperative to understand why many people take that most desperate decision.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Christine Jardine

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine]

I wish to speak to new clauses 26 and 28, and to support new clauses 1, 7 to 10, 13 and 29. I believe this Bill is hugely flawed and potentially damaging because of the atmosphere it will create and the way in which it will undermine people who make a valuable contribution to our economy. If we accepted the jigsaw of amendments, we could turn the Bill on its head and it could become a positive and welcoming piece of legislation, which would value people who come to this country and make a contribution. It would welcome children, reunite them with their families and send a positive message to the rest of the world.

New clause 26 would remove the right-to-rent charges, which the High Court ruled in March 2019 caused landlords to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity when demanding proof from proposed tenants, and therefore breached their fundamental human rights. I would think that a right-thinking Government would want it in the Bill, to protect those human rights.

New clause 28 is about the sharing of data between public bodies such as police, the national health service and schools with the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes. That is a fundamental pillar of the hostile environment that has appalling implications for those it affects, and often prevents victims and witnesses of crimes from coming forward for fear of being detained or deported.

As I say, those two new clauses could fit with the jigsaw of amendments placed before Parliament today, and fundamentally change not just the Bill but the atmosphere it creates and how it treats those who come to this country in search of a new life, including those whom we have for the past three months gone out many Thursdays and applauded for the contribution they make to our national health service and social care—the contribution they have made by putting their lives on the line for us. Instead of demanding a surcharge from them to work in that service, we should offer them indefinite right to remain in this country.

By making these changes, we would move away from the hostile environment, which I learned the origins of today, and I have to say that I am not as concerned about those as Conservative Members are. I am concerned about the impact it has had and continues to have on this country. I therefore ask the Minister and the Government to seriously consider these amendments, which would send out a message that we value people for who they are and the skills they bring to this country, and not just the monetary value of what they earn. We could do away with the NHS surcharge and allow those who have contributed to remain in this country and feel valued. We could create a system that reunites lonely, vulnerable, displaced children with their loved ones and gives them an opportunity to have a fine life, a good life in this country. We could say that we recognise that it is inhuman to keep people in detention for more than 28 days, and we could give asylum seekers the right to work, to contribute, to bring their skills to the table and help build and enhance our society and our economy, rather than denigrate them, rob them of their dignity and see, as a result, the sort of tragedy we witnessed in Glasgow last week.

We could send a message that we want to welcome people, that we will value them, and treat them humanely and with compassion. That is the country I have always understood us to be. An hon. Member said earlier that some of us on the Opposition Benches just do not get this country. I would contend that it is those of us on these Benches who do get this country, who get the people in this country and who get what they want to offer the people who come here to make a contribution and who have helped to make this country what it is.

[Mr Mitchell]

I have listened carefully to what has been said by Opposition Members, and I am not persuaded that the Bill is anything other than a good piece of legislation on the whole. The question for the House this afternoon is whether it could be improved, and that is why I put my name to the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says, but he should remember that the Bill has a long journey still ahead of it down to the other end of the Palace, where undoubtedly some of these issues will be prominent in the minds of their lordships.

Like the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) I had the opportunity, courtesy of the Home Office, to visit Brook House. I went there following the “Panorama” programme, which led us to believe that the conditions were inhumane. Actually, I thought the conditions were both humane and decent.

I will come directly to the point I wish to make about the proposal for a 28-day limit. The problem is that the best regime in the world cannot ameliorate the fundamental injustice of a system that arbitrarily imprisons people without time limit, solely for administrative reasons. This is a matter not of criminal justice, but of the administration of our immigration rules—the distinction is important.

Many people in immigration removal centres have never been charged with any crime, while some have previously been in prison following conviction for a criminal offence, but have served their time. All are detained purely and simply because they are liable for removal. Some go on to be removed, but more than half are released at an arbitrary later date and are able to remain in the United Kingdom either temporarily or permanently. As other Members have said, we remain the only country in Europe to detain people indefinitely for the purposes of immigration enforcement.

If individuals have no right to remain here, our priority should be to strongly encourage other countries to accept the return of their citizens. That is something the coalition Government spent a lot of time trying to do from 2010 to 2015. Indeed, we should negotiate such deals and procedures as an urgent necessity. In this way, individuals are no longer left in limbo in immigration detention.

The proposal for a 28-day limit applies only to the use of arbitrary indefinite administrative detention. Convicted criminals will serve their sentences and then face removal if they have no right to remain. If the crime is particularly serious and the prisoner presents a risk to public safety, it will be for a criminal parole board to carry out a risk assessment and decide when and if they can be released. In those extreme cases, we should surely expect the immigration service to have removal arrangements in place to coincide with the release date.

The proposal is not a seismic change, but it would save the country the more than £500 a week per person that is currently spent on detention. That is a significant saving, since 27,331 people entered detention in 2017 alone. In addition, I was surprised to discover, as I indicated to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, that over the past five years, £21 million has been paid out in damages for unlawful detention. That figure came from a recent Home Office question. That figure could be vastly reduced, if not eradicated, if a 28-day time limit were in place.