Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Angela Crawley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role, and I pay tribute to his predecessor, who was courteous and respectful to me at all times.

This Bill is just one part of a broader programme of constitutional reform designed to allow the Government to restrict the rights of some of their most vulnerable people, whether it is the Elections Bill putting barriers in the way of ordinary people being able to vote; the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill restricting the right to protest publicly; the Nationality and Borders Bill potentially criminalising people for saving the lives of asylum seekers; or this Bill reducing access to justice for those who have been badly treated by a public body. As Liberty has said, there is

“a concerted attempt to shut down potential routes of accountability and exert the power of the executive over Parliament, the courts and the public.”

Since my first election in 2015 I have sought to ensure that my constituents understand what goes on in this place. I think we can all agree that there is much that perplexes people, and that there are many levers that we and they can use of which they are not aware. There is a huge learning curve for a new MP so, as I got to grips with things, I tried to pass on what I learnt.

As time has moved on, I have turned my attention to the complexity of the language which can create barriers for people who do not do parliamentary speak. Since I became my party’s justice spokesperson, I have become acutely aware of the sometimes even more exclusive nature of legalese, so I feel something of a duty to interpret what is going on so that it can be readily understood by the average person in the street. To be clear, I am not questioning the average person’s ability to understand, but if someone does not use legal or parliamentary language regularly—and how many people out there do?—it will not come naturally. When we speak, we should remember that we are speaking not just to each other in here but to our constituents and to each other’s constituents. When they are losing their right to justice, we have an absolute duty to make sure that they know that that is what is happening. That is what I hope to do today. I am also happy to confirm that we are opposed to much of the Bill and will vote against its Second Reading.

Clause 2 seeks to oust Cart judicial reviews and, in Scotland, Eba judicial reviews. If an individual feels that a public body—such as the NHS, their local council or the Department for Work and Pensions, to name but a few—has failed to follow the law correctly in its decision-making process, that individual can appeal to the first-tier tribunal. If the first tier finds against them and that individual believes it has made an error of law, perhaps by overlooking vital evidence or misinterpreting the rules, that individual can appeal to the upper tribunal. Currently, if the upper tribunal refuses an appeal on the decision of the first-tier tribunal, the individual can ask to have the decision judicially reviewed. All sorts of criteria have to be met—one cannot simply ask for and get a judicial review—but currently people can at least apply. The legislation before us will remove that right. One might say, “Well, they’ve already had two bites of the cherry,” but the independent oversight of judicial review is being removed only for the tribunal system; currently, all other judicial reviews will continue. I say currently, because I share the fears expressed today by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) in his article: we do not know where this will lead. We do know that it is so often the tribunal system that deals with the least powerful in our society, from whom the Bill removes the right to justice.

As the Law Society of Scotland has pointed out, the decisions of the upper tribunal are often taken by a single judge, based on the paperwork alone, so the person bringing the appeal has no opportunity to make their case in person, or to answer any questions that the judge may have. The opportunity to judicially review the decision of the upper tribunal is a vital last line of defence in cases in which the most fundamental of human rights are engaged.

We have heard much talk about the Government’s justification for taking away those rights, which appears to be the high volume of applications versus the low number of successful outcomes, but let us look at that. The evidence to support the Government’s position was so flawed that the Office for Statistics Regulation decided to investigate and found that the real success rate was at least 15 times higher than the Government figures showed. When the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) mentioned that, I saw the Secretary of State laughing, as if that was a derisory amount, but if we use the figures calculated by the Public Law Project, we see that that would amount to 40 people every year being incorrectly denied their right to appeal in cases where, as we have heard, the stakes can be incredibly high.

The Government seem to class an appeal as successful only if it first overturns the decision of the upper tribunal, is given permission to appeal and that appeal is then won further up the chain. They completely miss the point that Cart reviews serve to correct errors of law even if the appeal is ultimately unsuccessful. I cannot for the life of me see how all this can happen without a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has argued and will no doubt argue further in her speech.

Throughout my speech, I feel like I should be saying, “As the right hon. Member for Tottenham said,” because it feels like we have swapped speeches. I am trying to find different examples. We have heard that even the Government’s own figures say that the change will save only around £400,000 per year. Never mind the spending on the art collection: £2.6 million was spent on refurbishing No. 9 Downing Street as a media centre, and the saving represents less than one sixth of that. What is more important?

Let me return to why this type of judicial review is so important. I want to give an example of when it saved somebody’s life. This case concerns a Venezuelan man and his family who had fled to the UK after witnessing the violent murder of his friend by state actors. He arrived in Edinburgh and was refused asylum claimed on the grounds that if he was sent back to Venezuela, the perpetrators, who clearly had scant regard for human life, would seek to silence him. The first-tier tribunal and the upper tribunal surmised that, because he had suggested in evidence that he would not be able to recognise the killers, he had nothing to fear. Thankfully, he had that vital last line of defence and was able to judicially review the decision.

During the proceedings, the court found that both tribunals had made an error of law in misunderstanding this traumatised man’s evidence. He could testify to the time and location of the murder and he could be a credible witness in an investigation—perhaps his memory would be jogged by viewing photographs or creating photofits. It was obvious that the perpetrators would surely know that and would do anything within their power to prevent him from speaking up on his return.

The upshot was that the man was allowed to appeal. He won his appeal and was saved from deportation and almost certain persecution and death. How can the Government justify even to themselves taking away those rights?

The reversal of Cart-type judicial reviews could, as Liberty and others have pointed out, affect cases of access to vital benefits, leaving people with disabilities and those facing destitution and homelessness without a last line of defence. Nobody can guarantee that they will not one day have a disability, and very few people can guarantee—perhaps a few in here can—that they will not be absolutely dependent on disability benefits to survive financially. If, for some reason, they were to be denied those benefits, as happens far too regularly, and appealed against it, they would deserve the right to question that decision-making process.

I want to focus now on the suspended quashing orders and the prospective-only remedies in clause 1. They will not apply in Scottish courts, but because they can and will affect UK-wide laws, they will affect people living in Scotland—until, of course, we are independent, which I hope will not be too long from now. These changes could have a big impact on the Scottish courts for other reasons that I will come onto a little later—it is something known as forum shopping. Whether or not these orders are primarily for England and Wales, they are just plain wrong.

Let us look at quashing orders. The right hon. Member for Tottenham talked about the case of the employment tribunal fees. Basically, in a landmark judicial review in 2017, the Supreme Court found in favour of the applicant. I will not repeat everything that he said, but given that people were being charged up to £1,200 to access justice, this was a great outcome that will have made a big difference to many. If clause 1 had been in place then, those extortionate fees could have stayed in place until a date determined by the court. That would have given the Government time to rectify the unlawful policy. In other words, they would have been able to change the law so that the thing that had just been judged to be unlawful was suddenly lawful. Is that not incredible?

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Specifically on the important point about tribunal fees, this Government could have listened carefully to comments from across this House before introducing them. However, judicial review served as the primary purpose and vehicle for an individual to take action against this Government. How does my hon. Friend think this Government will be able to have that action taken against them in the future if they have their way with this Bill?

[Anne McLaughlin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but she is wrong to think that I can suggest anything, because I cannot do so. I would love to know what the Secretary of State is saying about this. We really cannot underestimate the chilling effect that this will have. It will put people off attempting to access justice in the first place. Who would put themselves through all this for no tangible outcome? Clause 1 creates a perfect storm of claimants having no incentive to challenge the Government or other public bodies, whereas the said public bodies and Government can proceed safe in the knowledge that they can do what they like. It is the risk of being held to account and the potential for challenge that drives good decisions and policy making.

As I said earlier, despite clause 1 being restricted to the courts of England and Wales, there will be an impact on the Scottish courts. If the Scottish courts are not directly subjected to clause 1, which they are not, what is to stop people from using the courts in Scotland to bring judicial review challenges on UK-wide legal matters? After all, it makes sense to take a case to a court where judges have more discretion and a wider set of legal remedies. So, while on the one hand, I am always happy to showcase anything that we do well in Scotland and certainly very happy to link that to reasons why Scotland should be independent. If such a practice became widespread, the Scottish courts could face pressure on valuable resources, which could result in delays.

In conclusion, as Liberty reminds us in its evidence, the independent review of administrative law considered prospective-only remedies, but chose not to recommend them. It chose not to recommend a presumption for suspended quashing orders, nor did it recommend restricting judicial discretion to use alternative remedies. It did not recommend the use of ouster clauses. It based its recommendation to reverse Cart on later-to-be-discovered flawed Government statistics. However, the Government continue to push a Bill that blurs the separation of powers, restrains judicial discretion and, most importantly, discourages the public from challenging the decisions of the Government and public bodies. The SNP will be voting against Second Reading tonight, but I very much hope that some of the many concerns shared in here today by many Members will be considered before we proceed to scrutinise the Bill in Committee.

I am now going to end in a way that I never, ever envisaged I would do, which is by quoting a Conservative MP—the aforementioned right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, who has said:

“Be warned: this government is robbing you of your right to challenge the state”.

We should heed that warning seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Scotland’s justice system remains devolved and, as such, the powers to amend the judicial review process are, thankfully, protected. The UK Justice Secretary’s predecessor recognised that separate nature in March when he told the House:

“In respecting separate jurisdictions, as I always do, these proposals relate to England and Wales matters and have been carefully delineated in that way.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 510.]

The Minister must give similar guarantees that, if the Bill becomes law, the Government will not look to expand its scope to impact on Scotland’s independent, unique and distinct legal system. He must also acknowledge that he should not have the authority to attempt unilaterally to unpick such a fundamental part of the UK constitution. The Scottish judicial review process has evolved over many years and the result is a proper system of checks and balances that does not need interference from Westminster.

That separate and valued legal system means that most of the Bill will not impact on my constituents or on Scotland, but parts of it will, and that does not detract from my concern about the way in which the Government are operating towards the judiciary in England and Wales. It appears to me that the Bill is part of a broader drive to increase the power of the Executive, to limit oversight, and to reduce the ability to seek judicial remedy in the courts and to hold this Government and Governments after them to account.

I say a broader drive, because the Bill is moving through this place at the same time as the Nationality and Borders Bill, the Elections Bill, the review of the Human Rights Act and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

Each taken on their own merit should be cause for concern, but as a package they leave little doubt that the Government’s strategy is to roll back the rights of vulnerable groups, while simultaneously removing the checks and balances on the Government’s Executive power.

The Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament in 2019 was the first step on the road to an increasingly authoritarian style of government. Since the two high-profile defeats on article 50 and prorogation, and several High Court rulings on immigration and employment tribunal fees, the Government have been vocal in their criticism of the justice system. The Home Secretary herself referred to “lefty lawyers” and “do gooders” looking to hamstring the legal system. In reality, the Bill is a crackdown by the Government, who are unable to move past the frustration of high-profile defeats in the Supreme Court. Rather than asserting their Executive authority and removing checks and balances, the Government should be listening to calls from senior legal experts across these islands and their own review.

Lord Faulks, a former Conservative Justice Minister, wrote that Ministers should “think long and hard” before seeking to curtail the powers to the judiciary. He added: “Our view is that the government and Parliament can be confident that the courts will respect institutional boundaries in exercising their inherent powers to review the legality of government action. Politicians should, in turn, afford the judiciary the respect which it is undoubtedly due when it exercises these powers.”

With that in mind, I urge Members to vote against the Bill and maintain the vital checks and balances in this crucial area of law.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is, sadly, completely right in his analysis. There remain very serious problems in what I believe is the misapplication—the excessively legally purist application—of that protocol. What we are hoping for is some progress from the European Commission—some repairs that I think that they should make to the way this is working—but to echo what he has said, we certainly rule nothing out in our approach.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

One in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Does the Prime Minister agree that parents’ grief for this profound loss is not an illness and therefore that parents should receive formal miscarriage leave rather than resorting to sick pay or unpaid leave if their miscarriage occurs before 24 weeks? Will he support my private Member’s Bill and introduce paid miscarriage leave for parents?

[The Prime Minister]

I sympathise deeply with anybody who has suffered the loss of a baby by miscarriage, of course. What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we did introduce, in 2020, paid parental bereavement leave. That entitles those who lose a child after 24 weeks of pregnancy to some payment, but, of course, nothing I can say, and no payment we could make, would be any consolation to those who experience a miscarriage in that way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)]

There has been an 800% increase in Disability Confident employers in the Durham-Tees Valley area. The newly re-elected Conservative Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, and our new Hartlepool MP are utterly committed to ensuring that more disabled people get access to work and into work.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]]

In the UK, two weeks’ parental leave and pay is in place after stillbirth, but there is no such support for anyone who has experienced a miscarriage before 24 weeks of pregnancy. Will the Minister support my calls to the UK Government and allow families to grieve for their profound loss by legislating for paid leave for everyone that experiences miscarriage?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. We have looked at seeking to change the rules about neonatal leave. Any grieving situation is incredibly difficult, but as we work towards the employment Bill, we will make sure that we can come up with a rounded view for anybody that is grieving.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

What offer his Department (a) made to and (b) received from the EU on reciprocal visa-free travel for touring musicians during negotiations on the future relationship with the EU.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

What offer his Department (a) made to and (b) received from the EU on reciprocal visa-free travel for touring musicians during negotiations on the future relationship with the EU.

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

What offer his Department (a) made to and (b) received from the EU on reciprocal visa-free travel for touring musicians during negotiations on the future relationship with the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

We continue to work with the EU Commission and member states to ensure that we can have the kind of opportunities that the hon. Lady describes. In the meantime, we do want to support the sector, which is why the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has set up the £1.57 billion cultural recovery fund, which is currently supporting 75,000 jobs.

[Angela Crawley [V]]

Radiohead have called this Government “spineless”. Whether it is Elton John, Ronan Keating or Brian Cox, there is a continuing all-star line-up of some of our biggest exports who are emphasising the importance of touring for musicians at all stages of their careers. How does the Minister feel about the prospect of major acts deciding that they need base themselves abroad because our parochial laws do not allow the movement needed to compete on the global stage?

[Penny Mordaunt]

It is not about our parochial laws. During the negotiations, the EU tabled text regarding paid activities that can be conducted without a visa. Those proposals would not have addressed our arts sector’s concerns; they did not deal with work permits at all and would not have allowed support staff to tour with artists. The only way we are going to get movement on this issue is to get the EU to agree to our very reasonable proposals. I urge everyone, whether they are politicians or from the cultural sector, to work with us to persuade our counterparts of our common-sense approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

If he will make an assessment of the potential effect of reductions in civil service headcount on the ability of Government to implement its policies.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister on the Government’s plans to reform the civil service.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

The Government were elected with an ambitious agenda. The civil service must continue to change to deliver that agenda, which means focusing laser-like on improving citizens’ lives. I was proud to be able to talk to civil servants yesterday at Civil Service Live and to be able to share with them an ambitious reform programme that has the support of public servants across the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can tell my hon. Friend that we are not only building Northern Powerhouse Rail and investing in the midlands rail hub but, as he knows, we are looking into whether and how to proceed with HS2, and the House can expect an announcement very shortly.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Q4. This Prime Minister has shown no respect for Scotland. Will he listen to the Scottish food and drink sector, which currently employs 40,000 EU nationals? We have 46,000 roles needing to be filled by 2030. The figures are clear: immigration is an urgent priority for Scotland. So when will this Prime Minister accept that Scotland must have the power to tailor its own immigration policy and ensure that we have the powers to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

I have the utmost respect for the people of Scotland. I have less respect for the SNP Government of Scotland, who are currently, because of their failures, producing less growth than any other part of the UK.

Debate on the Address

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I will endeavour to be a tad briefer than some of my colleagues on both sides of the House.

This Queen’s Speech was delivered against a backdrop of chaos and a political crisis that we have never seen before. It was nothing more than an expensive distraction from the shambles that is Boris Johnson’s premiership. While I am more than happy to pay tribute to the hon. Members for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), who opened the debate, I think it is clear that, as was said, the Government are desperate to hold on to the Union of this Kingdom. Perhaps a more apt choice of Fleetwood Mac lyric than “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow” would have been “Chain, keep us together”, because that is what they are hoping for. The fact is that, despite the pomp and ceremony, none of the announced Bills will be implemented before a general election, and I think that the Government know that.

The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) outlined his ambitions to scrap the benefit freeze, the rape clause, the two-child tax and the bedroom tax. I was pleased to note that he had a copy of the 2017 Scottish National party manifesto. We have been espousing those policies for the best part of five years, and it is good that he has finally caught up with our programme. It was good of the SNP to help him out by writing his manifesto; I know that he needs a bit of inspiration.

Sadly, the Queen’s Speech cannot be delivered by this Government. In their current form, they would be lucky to do so. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said that he was praying for miracles. Let me say with the greatest respect: the Government need a miracle to get this Queen’s Speech passed.

Not only did the Prime Minister lie to the Queen about Prorogation, but he has now brought her to this place to launch his election campaign. If we hear the words “Get Brexit done” one more time—perhaps someone will tell me, and the rest of the UK, exactly what that means. In fact, it is meaningless, and it detracts from the real problems that we face across the UK, and with which the Government have to deal. We have heard vague promises of hospitals, police on the streets and better education. We in Scotland know exactly how to deliver an education system, a police system and a justice system, because we in Scotland have been doing that successfully. In the crisis that is Westminster, it is the SNP Government who are delivering for Scotland.

Ironically, the Government appear to be putting law and order front and centre of their ambition to return to power. That would surprise most people, given that the Prime Minister was recently found to have broken the law by the highest court in the land, and consistently says that he will do the same again at the end of the month. We have a Parliament in turmoil, a Government without a mandate and a Prime Minister with no power, yet we find ourselves in the House delivering the election manifesto of the Conservative party through the vehicle of the Queen’s Speech.

The Government are cutting taxes for the rich while cutting services for the rest of us. Rather than using the Queen’s Speech to address the glaring inequalities across the country, the Prime Minister used it to announce a crackdown on our European neighbours entering the country, a move that would be devastating for my constituency and for Scotland. In Scotland we have a problem with emigration, not immigration, and this proposal proves how out of touch the Government are with the wishes of the people of Scotland. It does not need to be said again, but I will say it again none the less: Scotland voted to remain in the EU, and the Government have shown a flagrant disregard for the will of the Scottish people. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention, if the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) would like to make one. No? Then I will carry on.

[Mhairi Black]

As you were.

[Angela Crawley]

As I was saying, EU citizens from outwith the UK who are living in Scotland make up just over 3% of our population. They enrich our culture, strengthen our society and boost our economy. Leaving the EU and ending freedom of movement could cost Scotland up to £2 billion in tax revenues. I would like to understand how MPs who also represent Scotland on this side of the House intend to answer to their constituents when the general election comes. For Scotland that is not a price worth paying, and Scotland is not willing to pay it.

In my constituency, thousands of EU nationals are anxious about their future. I recently held a surgery specifically for those who are concerned about their future in the UK post Brexit, and the response was heartbreaking. Women in their 80s are planning to leave the place they have called home, families fear that they will have to return to a place that their kids will not recognise because they have never lived there, and young people are angry about the fact that their opportunities are being removed by this Government. Their anxiety was not relieved when the Minister for Security threatened EU nationals with deportation from the UK if they did not apply for settled status. We all know that the Government’s response has been woeful.

Europeans who work in our health service, support local businesses and help to grow our economy now face the full force of the Tories’ hostile environment. As if it were not bad enough to be happy to target anyone who does not look like a British citizen, they now want to target EU nationals who contribute to healthcare, contribute to the economy and contribute to Scotland. They are happy to tell us that those people must apply for settled status in a home in which they have lived for most, if not the entirety, of their adult lives.

I cannot support a Queen’s Speech that is inward-looking and ignores the problems that my constituents face. Rather than focusing on blocking EU nationals entering the UK, the Government could have used today’s events to announce a halt to universal credit, a failed policy that has been wreaking havoc in my constituency, causing people to turn to food banks and crisis grants just to feed themselves. That is this Government’s record. That is the record that we are not hearing about from the Prime Minister, but that is the record that the Government will face at the ballot box: a policy that is leaving local authorities out of pocket by millions of pounds, and picking up the pieces for a private sector that is increasingly reluctant to accept universal credit claimants.

The Prime Minister could also have announced compensation for the 1950s women whose pensions were removed from them with no consultation, or he could have called an end to the benefits freeze—another policy that has been in our manifesto for quite some time. Instead, in a room full of lords and ladies, the Queen, sitting on a golden throne, read a party political broadcast written by an unelected Prime Minister with no working majority, announcing the continuation of punitive policies that have harmed the most vulnerable in society.

Today has proved again how out of touch this place is. Scotland deserves the choice of a better future than the one that is being imposed upon it. It is clearer than ever that the only way to protect Scotland’s interests properly is for it to become an independent country.

Prime Minister's Update

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

The majority of my constituents did not vote for Brexit. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. This Government have no mandate in Scotland. This Prime Minister has no mandate in Scotland. The fact is that he has no respect for the constitution or rule of law, so why should Scotland not vote to leave this Union?

[The Prime Minister]

I remind the hon. Lady that more people in Scotland voted for Brexit than for the SNP.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

Of course I will look at the correspondence and make sure that the appropriate Minister meets the hon. Lady.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

With regards to the DWP’s pensions policy, this Women and Equalities Minister—the fourth—has had the opportunity to reduce the gender pay gap and tackle discrimination against those with disabilities, women and LGBT and BME people before another Prime Minister and another reshuffle. What is she going to achieve in this term?

[Alok Sharma]

We in the DWP have introduced a range of measures across the whole Government to make sure that we are supporting those across all sectors of society into work. As I said, the hon. Lady just needs to look at the jobs figures: we have joint record high employment, record high women’s employment and record high ethnic minorities in employment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

In the spirit in which the Prime Minister made her statement yesterday, when she said that she was keen to engage on an open and transparent basis, the Leader of the Opposition has said that there are no red lines, so I do not know why the hon. Lady is calling on me to draw some now.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the UK shared prosperity fund.

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the UK shared prosperity fund.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues about a range of issues affecting Wales, including the UK shared prosperity fund. Leaving the European Union removes the geographical and fund-specific constraints that currently exist, and provides an opportunity to address the concerns of businesses, the voluntary sector and communities about excessive bureaucracy.

[Angela Crawley]

The Government committed themselves to creating a UK shared prosperity fund to replace EU funding that seeks to reduce inequalities across our communities between the four nations of the United Kingdom. Two years later, the fund still does not exist. Are the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland advocating its introduction in the Cabinet, to ensure that Scotland and Wales secure the fairest deal and will not receive less funding than they currently receive, or than was promised by the leave campaign?

[Alun Cairns]

The simple fact is that the shared prosperity fund does not exist because we are still part of the European Union and receiving that EU funding. There is clearly plenty of space for development, and we will be consulting shortly. In respect of the share of funds received by Wales, I would compare my record positively with that of the Labour Administration. Having underfunded Wales for 13 years, we now have a new, enhanced settlement that is focused on need.