Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As I have said, I hope to say more about the approach we want to take, but there is a case that an approach on short sentences along the lines that I have discussed may reduce the prison population, but the principal purpose is not reducing the prison population. It will not be massively dramatic, but I believe it will help to reduce reoffending. That is the big prize, rather than what are likely to be relatively marginal changes to the prison population.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

12. What steps the Government is taking to reform the provision of legal aid.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Paul Maynard)]

Access to justice remains a fundamental right and the Government are committed to ensuring everyone can get the support they need to access the justice system. We recently launched our legal support action plan, with a series of changes to enhance the breadth of legal support made available.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position and his excellent answer. Many are concerned that reductions in legal aid from 2000 onwards have gone too far, meaning that people struggle to get access to justice. Does he agree that the time has come better to fund legal aid, rethink the abolition of conditional fee agreements and ensure the court system as a whole is funded, to make sure we uphold the rule of law?

[Paul Maynard]

My hon. Friend is clearly easily pleased by my answers. Last year we spent £1.6 billion alone on legal aid, and that will continue. Our legal support action plan includes such measures as reviewing the means test for legal aid and the criminal legal aid fee scheme, so we constantly look to ensure the level of support is correct and appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

Our court reform programme is one of the most ambitious in the world. We recently held a seminar at which at least 20 other countries were represented. They talked about their reform programmes, and none of them was as ambitious as ours in streamlining, making more effective and modernising the court process. The delay in the programme is to ensure that we can efficiently and effectively manage the programme going forward.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

17. What steps he is taking to control prisoners’ access to telephones.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

We need to prevent these mobile phones from getting into prison. That is not always easy, because some of the new phones are almost just an inch in size. This work involves not just metal detectors, but X-ray scanners that can look inside bodies. If these phones get inside prisons, we need to identify them, we need to intercept the calls and block them, and we need to seize the phones.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, where prisoners use mobile phones to send vile messages to the families of their victims, social media giants such as Snapchat must take responsibility and help the police to bring the culprits to justice?

[Rory Stewart]

First, using a mobile phone in a prison is an illegal act. It is a horrifying thing to harass victims using a phone from prison. It is entirely illegal, and we will be working with colleagues from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to draw the attention of these social media companies to the fact that illegal action is taking place through their systems.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

T9. Do Ministers agree that the Sentencing Council has shown great leadership in acting swiftly to address the growing threat of fentanyl and other synthetic opioid drugs by issuing guidance last month? Will the Minister continue to work with me to raise awareness of this deadly drug?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his campaigning on this issue. As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, fentanyl is an incredibly dangerous drug, because even in minuscule quantities, it can do more damage than heroin and cocaine. We have had nearly 240 deaths in Britain and the United States has had up to 20,000 deaths in a year from fentanyl, so the recent actions from the Sentencing Council and the Crown Prosecution Service to clarify how noxious this substance is are welcomed, and I repeat my tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue.

Fentanyl: Sentencing

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sentences for supplying Fentanyl.

I am delighted to have secured this debate on the evils of fentanyl. It all came about because of a tragedy that took place one morning in 2016, when every parent’s worst nightmare came true for a family in my constituency. Graeme Fraser was getting ready to walk his dog. He went to ask his son if he wanted to join him. On entering his son’s bedroom, he found his son’s body on the bed, pale, rigid and lifeless. Robert Fraser was just 18 years old. Beside Robert’s body, on a book cover, was a clear plastic bag containing white powder. The police did not know what it was. Only several weeks later did tests identify it as a substance called fentanyl.

Robert was one of the first people in Britain to be killed by this dangerous and incredibly toxic drug. Since that day, at least 120 deaths in this country have been attributed to fentanyl, and since that day I have been working with Robert’s family to raise awareness, to try to save other young lives and prevent other parents going through what Michelle and Graeme have gone through. I am delighted that Michelle, Robert’s mother, is here in the public gallery today.

Ultimately, we are fighting for tougher jail terms for people who are caught supplying fentanyl. We are calling it Robert’s law, in memory of Robert, and I will explain why it is so incredibly important. Fentanyl is a class A drug, yet it is vastly more dangerous than any other substance in that category. Kent’s top drug detective told me that it was more like a poison. It is extremely powerful—50 times stronger than heroin.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that due to its intense potency, when fentanyl is cut with heroin and cocaine those drugs become far more addictive? Fentanyl is therefore ideal for drug dealers, because it is very addictive and their clients become very dependent.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely right. He is a true champion of his constituency, and he will recall that his own constituent, Jed Spooner, who was just 27 years old, died from fentanyl on 2 December 2017 in Clacton. It is an appalling drug and a real, evil poison, 50 times stronger than heroin. It is a synthetic opioid, often produced in China, smuggled out in shipping containers and sold domestically on the dark web. Over in America, fentanyl has claimed 20,000 lives.

Those numbers are remarkable, not because they are so large and rising so quickly but because our top police people at the National Crime Agency say they have seen no evidence that drug users are demanding fentanyl. It is not a drug that people are craving and demanding at all. Robert did not demand it. He was no drug addict. He would get together with friends at weekends and experiment; I would not recommend that young people do that, but we all know that they do, and what happened to Robert could happen to any of our kids.

Other fentanyl deaths have involved even greater deception. In the north-east of England, only last year, heroin suppliers began secretly mixing fentanyl with their usual supplies to increase profits, exactly as my hon. Friend pointed out. There has been a surge in overdoses in the region. In Teesside, at least six people have died. Again, the National Crime Agency said that it has seen no evidence of users demanding fentanyl-laced heroin.

Why do dealers get involved in it? The answer is simple: it is cheap and versatile. It is a great cutting agent, it is difficult to detect and it has extreme potency, which means that drug users believe they have consumed a pure, powerful and strong substance, yet for the supplier it is a fraction of the cost. For most drugs, supply is dictated by demand—people will always supply them because there is so much to gain from doing so —but fentanyl is not being demanded. It is a choice, which until now has been tipped one way by the desire for profit on the part of drug pushers and dealers, not by users seeking that toxic and dangerous substance. Given the lack of demand for fentanyl, its obvious dangers and its capacity to kill, dealers should be punished more harshly for supplying it. Today, they know that they will not be, which is why I am making the case for updating our justice system.

Some will argue that a whole new class should be created for fentanyl, but I do not think that would be the right thing to do. That would send the wrong message about other class A drugs, which are incredibly harmful. Michelle and I want the existing sentencing guidelines to be strengthened. Right now, they mention drugs such as cannabis, heroin and all the rest of it, but they do not mention fentanyl. The result is that we do not send a strong enough message to drug dealers. One recently convicted supplier was handed a jail term of just 18 months, despite the fact that his batch of fentanyl was directly linked to a death. That shows that the existing guidance is not strong enough. Until it is, drug dealers across our country will not be sent a strong enough message. They do not think our justice system will punish them fully for the level of misery they inflict.

Some people will say that tougher sentencing does not work. Again, I disagree. Let us look at gun control. Two decades ago, we introduced legislation to stop Britain heading down the American route of rampant gun ownership. Ten years later, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 went even further and introduced still tougher sentences. Today, Britain has one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world. We have a history of looking across the Atlantic, taking note of alarming trends, and taking action to stop them gathering pace here. Over there, they know things are already very serious, and a number of states have started bringing in second-degree murder charges against fentanyl dealers. Let us do what we did with guns. Let us look at the fentanyl problems in America, look at the growing numbers here and take action now before it is too late.

I believe that a good start would be to place any quantity of fentanyl in the top of our sentencing categories of harm. After all, a quantity of fentanyl the size of a grain of sugar can be fatal. High or extreme potency should be added to the list of aggravating factors. Purity is already on the list. In terms of danger and capacity to kill, potency is far more significant than purity. The measure that I suggest would increase minimum jail terms from three years to six. After accounting for aggravating factors, most fentanyl suppliers would be looking at a minimum of 10 years behind bars. That is the kind of strong message we want to send to dealers who think nothing of taking the lives of our kids.

I can see that there are arguments against this campaign. People will say, “The war on drugs is lost”—the usual defeatism. They will say, “We can never win the war on drugs. We can never stop drug addicts putting dangerous substances in their bodies. We can never stop dealers trying to make a buck off the back of them.” I say that the war on drugs is not lost. We must fight back. The number of drug deaths in Kent—the county of my constituency—has doubled in the past three years. In Canterbury, two young men recently lost their lives because of fentanyl.

[Giles Watling]

Last year, some 60 deaths were recorded, and that number has now doubled. In comparison with the number of deaths caused by the misuse of many other drugs, that is relatively small. Is it not right that we get on top of this now and nip it in the bud before it spreads even further?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I completely agree, which is why yesterday’s huge step forward on the road to Robert’s law is so welcome, with the Sentencing Council setting out new guidance called “Sentencing of drug offences involving newer and less common drugs”, which specifically related to synthetic opioids. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the action being taken by the Ministry of Justice, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Sentencing Council. This is a trend that we must reverse. Drugs rain devastation on our families, friends and communities; they drag our young people into gangs and violent crime and they kill those closest to us.

I want to take the House back to the day that Robert died. His mother Michelle, who is sitting in the Public Gallery, was with a friend in Primark that morning when her phone rang. Graeme told her the news and she collapsed to the shop floor, screaming. Her life has not been the same since. I will finish with her words, because her situation could all too easily become anyone else’s in this room. She says:

“Robert was not an addict. He made a bad choice. This poison is costing lives and sitting back, hiding, hoping it will all go away is not an option. My son’s memory is worth so much more — and so is our children’s future. If we bring in Robert’s Law, we will save lives. And it means my son mattered. That can by my boy’s legacy.”

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) is able to take a few minutes in the time remaining to make a short speech about the campaign against this evil drug that he has been fighting alongside me for some years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

I will be meeting the Welsh Secretary specifically on this issue next week. We are setting up a meeting with the Head of the Welsh Government, who of course will be changing, and I would very much like the hon. Gentleman to join that meeting. I reiterate that, so long as offending rates in Wales remain as they are, although it is laudable that the Welsh Government wish to divert people away from prison, we currently need places for Welsh prisoners.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

T7. In addition to asking the Minister whether he can confirm to the House that he has no objections to the Service Animals (Offences) Bill, may I ask what action he is taking to ensure that the justice system addresses new, dangerous and increasingly abundant drugs such as fentanyl?

[Rory Stewart]

Fentanyl is unbelievably dangerous and has contributed to nearly 20,000 deaths a year in the United States. We have underscored through the Crown Prosecution Service guidance for prosecuting people. Fentanyl is a class A drug, but 50 times more powerful than other drugs. People need to understand that even a tiny quantity of this drug is a serious danger to the person producing it, to the person supplying it and, above all, to the public, and must be prosecuted.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

Those are important questions that we will look at closely. We have published an action plan for Liverpool prison. There are two key things we need to do. The first is about leadership. The governor has now been replaced. The second is that we have put in place a new urgent notification process, so if anything like this happens again and inspectors raise it, we will be forced to reply within 28 days. But that is only the beginning, because this requires a complete change in culture that focuses on getting back to basics: cleaning the prison, reducing the violence, reducing the drugs and making sure the healthcare provision is in place.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

20. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post—the whole House knows of his passion for prisons and prisons policy. Will he hold to account those in the senior echelons of the Prison Service for the disgraceful and appalling conditions in the prison?

[Rory Stewart]

This is a big question of management. There are many very hard-working people at Liverpool prison who take their jobs very seriously and work very long hours, but we have to balance that with a recognition that clearly there have been fundamental failings. People will be held to account. Above all, we need to work with the team at the prison to ensure that in future it is a clean and decent place, both to protect the public and to reduce reoffending.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

But if my right hon. Friend agrees with me that our purpose in this case is not to create a so-called meaningful vote but simply to ensure that clause 9 is not used to create parallel proceedings or to give carte blanche, it would clearly make sense for the Government to make that undertaking rather than to accept an amendment that has an unnecessary effect.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

Looking at this matter independently, as one does these days, it strikes me that my right hon. Friend’s argument raises a serious question about why clause 9 needs to be in the Bill at all. We are going to have a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, and if the Government cannot say what it is that might be urgent, why should we have this clause at all?

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

Now that there is to be an implementation and withdrawal agreement Bill I do not personally yet understand the need for clause 9. However, the right way to deal with that is for the Government either to say that they will consider getting rid of clause 9 or to make the kind of restricted amendments on Report that I was describing. In any of those ways, the problem would be resolved without the need for this kind of tension, and that would surely be desirable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

The amendment has been tabled, and I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the assurance now that the same formula will be applied to all Brexit-related primary legislation, so he can take that one to the bank.

I turn now to amendment 19, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda. I understand his position and what he is trying to establish, but if the regulations made under clause 9 were to lapse two years after exit day, it would set a very rigid legislative timeframe for the Government and risk unnecessary disruption. If the two-year deadline expired unmet, it would create holes or risk creating holes in the statute book. I sympathise with the intentions behind the amendment, and I just wonder whether it was intended to tempt Eurosceptics on the Government Benches, but it is too rigid a fetter on Parliament’s ability to manage its legislative priorities between now and 2021, and it would risk exacerbating the very uncertainty that the Bill is designed to reduce.

Amendments 74 and 75 attempt to tie the use of clause 9 to our continued membership of the single market and the customs union. The Government have been clear that we are leaving the EU, and that necessarily means we are leaving the single market and the customs union. The amendments rehash old ground. The Government are clear that we are seeking a deep and special partnership with the EU, including as frictionless free trade as possible, and that will inevitably be linked to the withdrawal agreement. It is good news that we are moving to the negotiations on that area, following the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Prime Minister. The amendments, with the greatest respect to their SNP authors, would be counterproductive on their own terms, because they would undermine our ability to secure and implement the withdrawal agreement, which itself will be necessary for agreeing the future partnership agreement and maintaining barrier-free trade.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s argument on clause 9. It seems to me that the initial intention was to do the withdrawal agreement by regulation, since when the principle of a withdrawal agreement implementation Bill has been conceded. Under the circumstances, is not the proper thing to withdraw clause 9, to prevent Opposition Members, particularly from the SNP, from using it as a Christmas tree to put Brexit-stopping measures in place?

[Dominic Raab]

The problem is that clause 9, although now of residual use and scope, remains vital if we want the smooth Brexit that hon. Members in all parts of the House profess to want.

In fairness, we have spent a lot of time on those amendments. I want now to turn to amendments 142, 143, 275 and 156 and new clause 38, which seek to restrict the use of clause 9 with respect to citizens’ rights. As the Prime Minister reiterated in her speech in Florence on 22 September and since, we value the contributions of EU citizens living in the UK. We want them to stay. That is why the Government repeatedly made it clear that securing the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK on exit, and equally the rights of UK nationals living on the continent, was a top priority. I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming the fact that the joint report by the UK and EU negotiators published last Friday forms the basis of the agreement after the first phase of negotiations, which will cover the rights of EU citizens here and British citizens on the continent, giving them the security, the assurances and the confidence they need.

Again, I acknowledge the vital contribution that EU citizens make to our economy and our social and national life. We will ensure that EU citizens living in the UK at the date to be specified in the light of the negotiations will be able to apply for settled status under UK immigration law once they have completed five years’ residence here. In the light of the agreement reached, I hope that hon. Members will not press those amendments.

New clause 38 and amendment 156, meanwhile, cover the specific issue of Irish citizens’ rights. Maintaining the common travel area with Ireland, protecting the reciprocal rights of British and Irish citizens, is a primary objective for the UK and has been since the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech in January. The common travel area arrangements between the UK and Ireland and the Crown dependencies, and the associated rights, have existed for many years. They pre-date the UK and Ireland’s membership of the European Union. Although it extends to the whole of the UK, the value of the common travel area and associated rights is clearly most felt in Northern Ireland. These arrangements facilitate, among other things, the north-south co-operation provided for in the Good Friday agreement and daily life on the island of Ireland.

There is a strong appetite on both sides of the border and in all parts of the UK to maintain those rights. They are distinct from EU membership and are already provided for by domestic legislation. The joint report by UK and EU negotiators safeguards these interests. Given that agreement and the strong commitment from both the UK Government and, in fairness, the European Commission that these arrangements are protected and will be protected, new clause 38 and amendment 156 are unnecessary, and I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am afraid I must push on, because we are moving towards the deadline.

Having paid tribute to those right hon. and hon. Members for what they are doing this evening, I commend the terms of amendment 7 to the Committee. I will be honoured to go through the Division Lobby with those right hon. and hon. Members this evening.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The Committee will know that, from my point of view, we cannot get out of the European Union fast enough. Time and again, I have said that we need to be ready on day one and be prepared for every eventuality, deal or no deal—or, should I say, regional deal or global deal—but we must remember why we are taking back control. It is because of the vision we have for our country and because of our values. Those values include the rule of law, natural justice and the sovereignty of Parliament. The rule of law exists to ensure that executive power is not abused, and that is why I object to clause 9. It is not right that a measure of this sort should be put through by any form of statutory instrument.

I welcome the fact that the Government are going to bring forward a withdrawal agreement and an implementation Bill, and nothing I have heard today has indicated to me any sense of urgency or any reason why a statutory instrument will need to be put through in a hurry. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stay up all night long to pass legislation to get us out of the European Union as soon as possible. For that reason, I urge the Government to withdraw clause 9, and I have to say that I will not be able to support it on stand part.

[Mr Lammy]

I am coming up to my 18th year in the House. During that time, we have had serious votes on going to war in Iraq and in Syria, and on different occasions, parliamentary sovereignty has asserted itself. On the war in Iraq, we thought we had the information, but it turned out that we did not, and we went to war. On Syria, despite some strong arguments to intervene, we chose not to. I also remember sitting through the night for the 90-day detention legislation under Tony Blair, and this House resisted the move to a 90-day detention period for those arrested for terrorism offences. Tonight, we are again being asked to make a very important decision that will affect the future of this country.

I might say that the sovereignty of this Parliament is why we are here in the first place, so I applaud the Government Members who are standing by their principles and remembering the importance of coming back to debate in this House. This is about timing. We may have had a discussion about what is meaningful, but I think we all know what is meaningless. It is meaningless to have a debate and a vote in this House after the decision is made. For all those reasons, I hope that we will return after the vote on amendment 7 and find that we really have given back sovereignty to the UK Parliament.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leslie]

Yes, the right hon. Lady makes a good argument about how we are transposing certain bits of European legislation into UK law but not necessarily the protections to go alongside them. That is the point we need an explanation on. Why not bring those with us?

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument on transposing the charter of fundamental rights into British law. Is it his case that it should be transposed as a cut and paste or that it should be adapted? Article 39 talks about the right to stand for the European Parliament, article 44 talks about the right to petition the European Parliament and article 45 talks about freedom of movement, all of which would presumably no longer be relevant after we leave the EU.

[Mr Leslie]

I have been in Parliament since 1997, on and off, and I find that amendments can often be rebutted for a number of reasons but when people say there is a technical deficiency that tends to be the last refuge of the Minister. There may well be arguments that say that we need to cut and paste the charter of fundamental rights or the Francovich provisions, but to do so having regard to changes in the language to take account of new circumstances. Everybody can recognise the need for consequential or supplemental amendments to the legislation sometimes, but let us not kid ourselves: we are talking about some far bigger principles here. I hope the hon. Gentleman would not diminish the importance of the charter of fundamental rights and those myriad legal rights and protections we have that are so essential for the specific and general reasons I have given in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

Yes, absolutely, and that was what new clause 55 sought to achieve, although it did provide the opportunity of looking at purely technical amendments—those would be really technical, and I do not wish to burden the Committee with complete trivia.

[Charlie Elphicke]

My right hon. and learned Friend is making a typically thoughtful and deeply considered speech. On a point of clarification, would it be right to say that there are, effectively, three different categories in the charter of fundamental rights? There are those rights that, as I indicated earlier, do not make a lot of sense in transposition, such as the right to petition the European Parliament. There are those rights that are already covered by the Human Rights Act, such as the right to life and the right to property. However, there is a third category of rights, such as that in article 41, that are not covered by our own jurisprudence and legal system, and they might usefully be so in due course.

[Mr Grieve]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has correctly analysed what the issues are and the categories of rights on which we probably ought to focus.

--- Later in debate ---

Despite the Government’s oft-stated desire to secure an adequacy agreement that will retain the UK’s status as a safe recipient of personal data from the EU and further afield, I fear that their lack of action in preparing the ground properly to secure such an adequacy agreement by default or otherwise following the negotiations is causing great concern to businesses that rely heavily on the free flow of data. I urge the Government to accept amendment 151.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I had occasion to consider deeply the matter of rights and human rights when I drafted, tabled and had debated in this place a British Bill of Rights—the Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill. People said to me that that could not be done, that it could not be drafted and that it was an impossible project. However, with the help and counsel of many hon. and learned Friends—not least my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who has just spoken with power, force and vigour—I was able to construct and present a Bill of Rights to this House. That is relevant to this debate because there were three key questions involved. The first question was: what are the rights? The second was: how do we interpret them? The third was: which court should decide on those rights?

Let us take the first question. What are the rights? Some rights are so basic and self-evidently true that they are not even rights at all. They are values. They go to the heart of our constitution, of our foundations, of what we believe in as a country, of what we are about and of our way of life. They involve basic stuff such as the rule of law, natural justice, the right to a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence. Those are the fundamental values of what we are about as a nation and of what we hold to be self-evident and true. When they are trampled upon, there is uproar in this place and across the country because we know in our hearts that those are the values that we hold dear. They are not rights; they are values.

There are also rights, in the Human Rights Act 1998, that we hold to be self-evident and true. They are called second amendment rights in America, and they include the right to a free press, the right to free speech, the right to determine one’s religion and the right of association. Those are important rights that go to the heart of what we are about and that we call values. Then there are the many rights set out in the European convention on human rights that have been built mainly in our own constitution and our own history. They did not just begin in 1998. They are rights that we have taken to be self-evident and true for many years, and they have found their way into the Human Rights Act, and the human rights code—a document to which it is hard to object.

Then we come to the issue of interpretation, and that is where the problems begin. The European Court of Human Rights adopts an interpretation mechanism that I call objective. It asks: do we have the right to family life, yes or no? If we have that right, we cannot be extradited in certain cases. In our own system, we tend to take what I call a more subjective view. We look at all the facts and circumstances of a case. In interpreting that right, we ask whether someone should be able to stand on that right to family life, given their conduct if, for example, they had committed a crime or run someone over. Having examined all the facts and circumstances of the case, we would say that they should not be able to stand on that right because their conduct means that they should not be allowed, ethically and in equity, to do so. That is where the British people were in so many extradition cases. They thought, “These are European rights and they are all wrong.” They are not necessarily wrong, but their interpretation was not right and did not sit well with our values, our way of life and our understanding of how principles of law should be interpreted.

The third question is: what is the proper court? I made sure that my British Bill of Rights included a clause on interpretation. It stated: first, that all facts and circumstances of a case should be considered, giving judges a wide discretion to make a full decision; and secondly, that the court should be the Supreme Court. For me, it was about making the Supreme Court supreme. I did not see why our rights as a nation should be subject to the European Court of Human Rights, or indeed to the European Court of Justice, when our own Supreme Court can determine those things very effectively. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon that it should be this House that constructs rights, that their interpretation should be in line with our own canons of interpretation as a nation, and that the Supreme Court should be supreme.

However, I would not reject the charter of fundamental rights out of hand. Let me explain why. There are rights that make no sense here, such as the right to petition the European Parliament. If we are leaving the European Union, why would we want to petition the European Parliament? On the right to free movement, to seek and have employment anywhere across the continent, that will be a matter for us to determine as a nation state when we leave the European Union. It makes no sense to include those rights in the charter—a point I made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who agreed with me that we would need to adapt it.

The charter contains rights that draw on the European Court of Human Rights, so there is unnecessary duplication. Then there is an intermediate set of rights, which I think this House should look at. If we are to take back control, we should ask ourselves, “Is it right that some of the rights in the charter should be brought into our own system of law?” That might not be for this Bill, but it is something we should definitely consider.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

As we are in effect transposing the whole of EU law, with all the regulations that people have complained about for years, for example on bendy bananas, and the regulation of electrical items and consumer protections, does it not make sense to look at this third category of rights?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it does make sense to look at this category of rights, whether in this Bill or more widely; it is something the House should consider.

Where is the balance to be struck on article 8, which relates to the protection of personal data? My view, for what it is worth, is that I should own my own data and decide what happens to it. It is my own data about me, so I should not have the Government or big businesses saying, “No, it belongs to us.” That is a debate that we should have as a country. This Bill is probably not the right mechanism for that debate, but we need to consider where the balance should lie.

Article 41 sets out the right to good administration. The Minister will say, “Well, of course we administer correctly; we are honourable men”—so are they all. But it is important that, as a matter of principle, every person

“has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies”

and that the right includes

“the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken”.

It seems to me that these rights are self-evident and true, and that we ought to ensure that they are written into our codes, from the point of view of executive action, if they are not already. They include

“the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality”

and

“the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.”

Those things, it seems to me, are self-evident and basic about what we are and should be about. These are rights that are not written into our system fully and properly, but I think that there is a strong case that they should be. I have of late had reason to ponder such matters in more depth, and the House should consider them to ensure that we execute such things properly in our system, our way of life and the values that we hold dear. The House should take back control to ensure that the rules of law and of executive action apply to each and every person in this nation and that we strike the right balance as we take on the great responsibility of restoring sovereignty to our sovereign Parliament.

[Mary Creagh]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I voted against this Bill on Second Reading due to the powers that it puts into Ministers’ hands and the fact that it sidelines Parliament in many of these moments of incorporation. We have heard Government Members waxing lyrical about putting things back into the hands of this sovereign Parliament, but the Bill puts into the hands of Ministers the power to pass or strike out almost any law, and that point has been missed in this debate.

I am not a legal expert. I am not a barrister. I do not have a law degree. What I have is a semester spent studying Government law and policy at the London School of Economics as part of my master’s in European studies, and I have a massive book by Craig and de Búrca, which is still on the shelf in my office. As I was reading through the Bill, I noticed “Francovich” and that rang a little bell in the reptilian core of my brain. I thought to myself, “Ooh, that is one of those really important cases that I learned about 20 years ago,” and it turns out that that master’s has been the best money that I ever spent.

Francovich is one of the areas where the Government break their promise to cut and paste the whole body of EU law into UK law. Schedule 1 is their get-out-of-jail-free card and includes the things that they do not like and are not going to incorporate. There are a lot of words about why things will be difficult, why judges will be confused and why everyone will be getting themselves into a twist, but it is a rights grab and it must not be allowed to stand. We must not allow schedule 1, which is essentially a list of the ways in which the Government are curtailing legal rights and remedies that we have enjoyed as a result of our membership of the EU. Admittedly, however, some of those rights and remedies did not exist when we joined and have evolved over time through European Court of Justice jurisprudence and through the treaties.

For the last 25 years as EU citizens, we have enjoyed the right to state compensation when the Government fail to implement EU law correctly and an individual suffers a serious loss as a result—that goes back to my big green textbook. The rule was established after Andrea Francovich took his Government to court for failing to protect his rights at work. He worked for an electronics company in Italy, but he was paid only sporadically, and he was still owed pay when his employer went bust. The insolvency protection directive gives workers the right to be paid if their employer goes bust and they are owed wages, but Italy had failed to implement the directive, and the European Court of Justice ruled in 1991 that the Italian Government must make good the pay owed to Mr Francovich and, presumably, his colleagues. Since then, if an EU member state has failed to fulfil its obligations that come with membership of the EU, citizens can obtain compensation if they suffer damages as a result. I think the reason why that stuck in my mind was that the EU case law was relatively fresh 25 years ago.

How did the ruling apply in the UK? There is a particularly sad case that any one of us could have had as constituency MPs: the case of Ben Byrne. Since 1984, the second motor insurance directive has required member states to provide compensation arrangements for victims of untraced drivers and that the protection must be equivalent to that which is available for victims of insured drivers whose identities are known. In 1993 the then three-year-old Ben Byrne was hit by a car while crossing the road with his father. The driver sped off and was never found. Ben’s parents were not aware of his right to claim compensation until eight years after the accident.

We get such difficult, knotty cases in our constituency surgeries, with people being unaware of their rights and remedies under the law. Many of us will have held the hand of a constituent in terrible cases to ensure that they get justice.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I supported the remain side of the argument in the referendum, but my constituents listened politely to my advice and then two thirds of them voted to leave. A majority in this country voted to leave, so we have been handed instructions by the British people to leave the European Union and we need to respect the referendum result. This Bill is a key part of getting that ship under way. It is a process Bill that simply writes European law into our domestic legislation.

There are those who now say that we do not have enough scrutiny. However, it is strange that the European Communities Act has allowed all European law straight into our system since 1972 without any scrutiny in this House whatsoever. They did not complain about that, but they are suddenly worried about scrutiny. If we scrutinised and debated each and every one of the thousand statutory instruments and called them all in under the prayer motion procedure, we would do nothing between now and Brexit day but discuss the intricacies of writing bits of European legislation into our domestic legislation. I cannot speak for anyone else, but none of my constituents has asked me to do that. My constituents have not raised their determination for us discuss the minutiae and process of putting European legislation into our legislation. Has anyone else had a constituent say, “Between now and Brexit day I want you to discuss getting European law into our legal system”? I very much doubt it.

My constituents have asked me, “How can we ensure that we do not have to pay too much money? Does the EU have a legal case to demand money from us for the Brexit divorce bill? Does it have a case to demand £50 billion or whatever it is from us?” So I spent some time doing some research. I looked at the matter carefully with the eminent Martin Howe, QC, and we concluded that the EU has no claim at all as a matter of law. In fact, a compelling argument suggests that we are owed €10 billion by the EU for the return of our stake in the European Investment Bank, but we do not hear about that from the Opposition. We do not hear them making the case for scrutiny of the divorce bill to try to get some taxpayer value—not a bit of it.

Then, my constituents raised with me their concern about whether there might be queues on the roads to Dover and problems with trade when we leave the European Union, to which I say it is important that we are ready on day one, and that we are prepared for Brexit day, deal or no deal. That is a prime concern of my constituents, because gridlock at Dover means gridlock for the UK economy as a whole.

It is very much in the national interest that we focus on being ready on day one, but we do not hear about that from the Labour party, either. We do not hear any constructive ideas whatever about how we can be ready on day one, how we can make a success of Brexit or how we can ensure that we do not have to shell out too much taxpayers’ money. No, what the Labour party wants to do is scrutinise process, because it does not have a clue.

The people of Britain clearly said we should leave the European Union, and they gave a clear instruction that they want to end uncontrolled EU immigration. That means that, yes, we have to leave the European Union’s internal market. They gave a very clear instruction that they want our trade policy to be made in Britain, not in Brussels. Yes, that means we have to leave the customs union, but it does not mean we cannot discuss a free trade agreement with the European Union, and that is what we should be focusing our time on here. Rather than discussing process or the scrutinising of laws that already exist just so they can be written into our legal system, we should be discussing how we will have relations with the European Union in the years after we leave, because that is what matters to our constituents.

The prosperity of our people, the success of our businesses and the lifeblood of our economy is about making sure we foster international trade not just with the European Union but with the wider world. That matters because 80% to 90% of all global growth in the years to come will not come from Europe. Those are not my figures, and it is not my argument—they come from the European Commission in reply to questions raised in the European Parliament.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Clearly we want to ensure a reasonable win-win trade deal with the European Union, but is my hon. Friend aware of reports that, if we fail to get that deal and we go to WTO terms, our Exchequer will benefit by £13 billion a year from the taxes charged on imports from the European Union?

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. There are those who say that we have to beg Europe for a deal. Last time I looked, the European Union had a £100 billion surplus on trade in goods with the United Kingdom. If there were tariffs, European exports to Britain would be hit by £13 billion, whereas our exports to Europe would be hit by only £6 billion. That shows why it is in Europe’s interest to do a free trade deal, and why it would be an economically illiterate act of self-harm by the European Union not to want to do a trade deal. If anything, a trade deal is more in the EU’s economic interest than it is in ours.

Those are the hard numbers, and that is where the House should be focusing. If we want scrutiny, we should scrutinise how we can reduce the divorce bill, ideally to nothing. We should scrutinise how we can make sure we have a positive relationship with the European Union in the years to come, how we can have free trade, how we can have trade across the rest of the world, and how Britain can be positioned to grow so that our sons and daughters can have the kind of future that they expect us to build for them. That is why we need to approach this positively and thoughtfully, and it is why we need to apply scrutiny to the things our constituents care about, rather than process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Elphicke Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I remember with fondness our time together on the Justice Committee, where he had many good thoughts to put forward. We will be putting out our proposals in due course, which will discuss these issues in detail, but one of the important points is that we want the ultimate arbiter of those rights to be the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the problems with the current set-up is that the code of rights includes many reservations and qualifications that the European Court does not embrace? A British Bill of Rights can ensure that there is proper balance and that the interests of justice are served.

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is absolutely the reason we want to pursue a British Bill of Rights to put that in place.