Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I will address two issues in my response to the King’s Speech, both of which relate to violence.

In my constituency, we have lost far too many young lives to serious violence, including, since the start of September, Ronaldo Scott and Keelen Morris Wong. Both were brutally murdered in broad daylight with huge knives of the kind known as “Rambo knives” or “zombie knives.” They both leave a community of family, friends and neighbours utterly devastated.

Our communities are playing their part, with support from our local councils and the Mayor of London, in tackling the complex problem of serious violence, but the Government have not been playing their part. A ban on Rambo and zombie knives was promised in 2016, but in response to my recent written question, the Minister said that it would be done “when parliamentary time allows.” The King’s Speech is the moment in our calendar when the Government set out how they will allocate parliamentary time, so I am dismayed that it contains no specific mention of a ban on the largest and most brutal of knives. No one has a legitimate need for a hunting knife in London. By failing to bring forward the ban, the Government are signalling that they simply do not care about the violence being perpetrated in constituencies such as mine.

The second issue I will address is the horror that we are witnessing in Israel and Gaza. The terror attack perpetrated by Hamas on 7 October was an unspeakable violation, the largest slaughter of Jewish people since the holocaust, and the largest terror attack since 9/11. We stand in solidarity with all those affected: the injured, the hostages and the families who are bereaved or desperately worried about loved ones held captive in Gaza. Israel has the right to defend itself—as would any country in the face of such an horrific attack—but that right is not without limit. It is constrained by international law, which protects civilians, critical infrastructure such as hospitals, and critical supplies such as food, water, medicines and energy.

We have witnessed a month of unrelenting bombardment of Gaza. More than 11,000 people have been killed, homes and whole neighbourhoods have been destroyed, hospitals have been left unable to function, and a whole population is being denied access to food, water, energy and medicines. We cannot look at the horror and suffering on our TV screens and conclude that the scale of destruction we are witnessing is proportionate, or that denying aid from entering Gaza is within international law. Again, we must stand in solidarity with all those affected: the injured, the families who are bereaved and those desperately worried about their loved ones in Gaza.

I have heard from thousands of my constituents who have been in contact with me over the past month to share their views. They, too, are completely horrified by what they are seeing, and they want every possible effort to be made to stop the conflict. They understand that that is what is signalled by the word “ceasefire.”

In calling for a ceasefire, no one is suggesting that the cessation should be unilateral or without conditions: Hamas must release the hostages. In war, ceasefires do not always hold, and we must all be realistic about the intensity of this conflict, but a bilateral humanitarian cessation of the violence—a ceasefire—is surely the minimum we should be demanding in the face of such horrific suffering. This is not a minority view, but the view of Oxfam, Medical Aid for Palestinians, Islamic Relief, the Red Crescent, Christian Aid, and all of the major aid agencies with a presence in the region. It is the view of the United Nations and all of its aid agencies. It is the view of our former colleague in this place, David Miliband, as well as of President Macron, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope.

On this issue, the overwhelming, prevailing view of my constituents is that where we have an opportunity to call for an end to the horrific suffering in Gaza, we must do so. “Ceasefire” is the word that they understand to mean an end to that horrific suffering.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech, and I am sure my constituents feel very similarly to hers. I think we all want to see a ceasefire—a cessation of hostilities—and we need to have the steps to bring that about. However, does my hon. Friend agree that we need to see not only the release of hostages, but an agreement between these two warring factions and the release of prisoners from the other side?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is right. This process is not easy—nobody is saying that it is—but my conscience tells me that calling for a ceasefire is the right thing to do. That is not a unilateral laying-down of arms, but a bilateral humanitarian ceasefire predicated on the release of hostages and leading to an internationally brokered peace process and a two-state solution, with a secure Israel living alongside a sovereign, viable Palestine.

I fully understand that colleagues will have different views from those of their constituents, and there is no easy response to this appalling conflict. We must all treat each other with respect at this time, but we must all be able to stand in front of our own constituents with integrity, and at peace with our own consciences on the issues that matter most to them. My conscience tells me that I must call for a ceasefire today—a halt to this dreadful destruction and conflict. Far too many have already died on both sides, and more will continue to die if the violence does not cease. We must call for a ceasefire.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

The change in sentencing powers was no reflection on the magistrates, whose work is highly valued. The Department continues to keep the sentencing powers under review. I give my hon. Friend the commitment that the issues raised in that meeting with his local bench are being progressed through the Department

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

T7. A constituent who is a victim of domestic abuse recently attended court for the trial of her abuser. An officer from the Crown Prosecution Service told her that they did not know whether the case would be called that day; that if it was not, they did not know when it would be called; and that if she dropped the charges, the CPS would arrange a lifetime injunction preventing her abuser from contacting her. An injunction might afford my constituent some protection, but it would not deliver justice or prevent other women from being attacked by the same abuser. Will the Secretary of State investigate such unacceptable practices, which seek to reduce backlogs by persuading victims to withdraw from their right to the justice that they deserve?

[Alex Chalk]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that people should have the opportunity to see justice done, and justice is done not simply by getting an injunction—important though that may be—but by ensuring that an abuser hears the clang of the prison gate in appropriate circumstances and if that is what the court orders. I do not know specifically what happened in that case, but I can say that, under the victims code, individuals have the opportunity to raise issues with the CPS. Supposing that they were seeking to drop a case, there is now a victim’s right to review—to say to the CPS, “Look again at this.” Equally, there is the opportunity for court familiarisation visits or special measures applications. That is all about ensuring that, where they want to, victims have their day in court and see justice done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

2. What steps his Department is taking to reform the criminal justice system to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to reform the criminal justice system to help tackle violence against women and girls.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rachel Maclean)]

Since we published the end-to-end rape review, rape convictions have increased by 77% in the past year, and they are up by 30% on pre-pandemic levels. But there is much more to do, which is why, among other measures, we are more than quadrupling funding for victim support, to £192 million, and investing in increasing the number of independent sexual and domestic abuse advisers to 1,000 by 2024-25.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks; I have two observations on what she said. First, she talks about the Met police. The Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is the police and crime commissioner for the London police forces. I also ask her to direct her questions to the Home Office, which leads on these matters. Of course, we will play our part, which is why we are rolling out all the measures in the Crown courts to protect victims of sexual assault and rape, and there is a lot more to do.

[Helen Hayes]

Under this Conservative Government, people can be fined for cycling on the pavement but not for following a girl walking home from school. The problem is so widespread that research by Plan International revealed that one third of all schoolgirls have received unwanted sexual attention in their school uniform. For so many women, a lifetime of feeling unsafe on our streets starts in childhood. The Government continue to ignore the problem. Does the Minister agree that the law must be changed to criminalise street harassment?

Rape and Sexual Violence

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in this important debate on behalf of women and girls in Dulwich and West Norwood who have little confidence that the Government, the police and the courts are there to protect them. The shocking failure to prosecute the horrific offence of rape is one of the clearest manifestations of the ways in which this Government are failing women and girls. A woman can be raped, and in less than 2% of cases will the perpetrator face any consequences. It might as well be legal.

Women and girls see a terrible continuum from the casual, everyday street harassment that they experience, to the culture of sexual harassment in schools exposed so clearly by the Everyone’s Invited campaign, to the horrific murders that have reached the headlines in recent months: of Sarah Everard, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman and Sabina Nessa, and of the many more whose names we do not know—women going about their daily lives, walking home, celebrating a birthday or meeting a friend for a drink on a Friday night.

Again and again, the Government have responded with warm words but the action has fallen short. They have said that they will create a new offence of sexual harassment in a public place if there is evidence that it is needed. I am not sure what additional evidence the Government need than the millions of women up and down the country who rose up a year ago to say that street harassment blights their lives and makes them feel unsafe in their own neighbourhoods and town centres. The promised legislation to criminalise curb crawling has failed to materialise. There has been no meaningful follow up response to the Everyone’s Invited revelations.

Women look at the reality of the framework of protection on which they should be able to rely, and they see story after story of police officers behaving in ways that are as bad as the offenders whom they are supposed to apprehend—sharing pictures of murdered women on a WhatsApp group, making advances as they report sexual harassment, being charged with and convicted of rape, and, most shockingly of all, using a warrant card to facilitate rape and murder. Yet there is still no statutory inquiry into the culture of misogyny in the police, and no commitment to culture change.

The courts are no better. I spoke recently with a constituent who is the victim of horrific domestic abuse. She told me that the central London family court is so clogged up that no one ever answers the phone. The Government must urgently act to give women and girls confidence that they are safe at home, on our streets and in public spaces; that if they are the victim of any type of misogyny, from curb crawling to street harassment to rape, they will be listened to and believed; and that the offence will be investigated, evidence gathered and everything possible done to bring a successful prosecution so that perpetrators are always held to account.

Delivering this change requires much more than simply a change of management approach at the Crown Prosecution Service. It requires a wholesale change in the culture of policing and the practices of the criminal justice system. It also requires a much greater commitment to prevention, particularly in educating boys and young men on respect and consent.

Finally, today is International Women’s Day, and as we debate the shamefully poor rape prosecution rate in this country, we must also stand in solidarity with women and girls in other parts of the world. I want to mention in particular women in Ethiopia, who over the past 18 months have been subjected to an horrific conflict, which has seen the routine and systematic use of rape as a weapon of war. The British Government must do everything possible to end the use of sexual violence in conflict, working through the UN and providing humanitarian and trauma support to victims. They can do that most effectively from a position of strength at home. The Government must show that rape is a heinous offence and that perpetrators must always be held to account by getting their own house in order and leading by example.

As a mother of two teenage girls, I reflect on how I always tell them as they leave home in the morning to “stay safe” as if that is somehow solely their responsibility. It is not. We cannot tolerate any longer a society in which women and girls are subjected to harassment on a daily basis, far too often escalating into abuse and rape, and in which the institutions and systems that should be there to protect them fail so dismally to do so.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to remind us at the get-go of the importance of a co-ordinated approach. All of us, including Members of Parliament, need to be domestic abuse-aware. We need to understand that it presents in myriad ways and myriad circumstances.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Domestic abuse is a leading cause of homelessness, and some of the most harrowing cases I have dealt with as a constituency MP have involved the difficulty faced by survivors of abuse in accessing safe, secure housing. Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure in the Bill that survivors of domestic abuse automatically have priority need status for housing and, most importantly, that local authorities are fully and sustainably funded to deliver that obligation?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue, and the Bill provides an opportunity to delve into it. It is important that we outline those principles on Second Reading. In Committee, we will have an opportunity to debate the detail. I am particularly interested in the points that she made. I want to make the Bill as good as possible, and I need the help not just of colleagues in government but of all hon. Members to do that.

Children’s Funeral Fund

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right that we can draw on the lessons from the devolved Administrations, and I will touch on that subsequently. However, there are different arrangements in, for example, Wales around the provision of coffins. I agree with the hon. Member for Swansea East that that is an essential part of this. We are looking to see if we can bring that within the scheme in a way different from that used in Wales. There are differences, and there is also a different legislative context given the devolution settlement—I will touch on that in a minute.

I entirely accept that for those dealing with the terrible burden of bereavement, progress has been slow. I want to reassure the House that, as the Prime Minister announced in the House on 27 February, work is on track in each of the areas I mentioned: a clear policy, a legislative vehicle to ensure that it is legal, and a strong and robust delivery mechanism to deliver the fund this summer.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for the work that she has done in this area, which is really second to none. In November last year, I sat in the living room of one of my constituents as she lay on her sofa stricken by grief having lost her 16-year-old son to knife crime. Her grief was compounded by the family’s inability to pay for the funeral that she wanted to give her son. Will the Minister accept that with every passing week, there is more urgency to this issue and to delivering this money so that it can benefit families who are facing a situation than none of us would wish on anyone?

[Edward Argar]

I want to give at this Dispatch Box a very clear and succinct answer: I agree entirely with the point that the hon. Lady makes. I will come on in a moment to what I have been doing to take a close and personal interest in making sure that this is driven at pace.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Rory Stewart]

As a former Minister in the Department for International Development, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we remain open to that. We have recently faced problems in Jamaica because there has been political resistance, not from us but from the Jamaican Government, to British development money being used in that way. We remain open to investment in the rule of law, and if it helps us to return foreign national offenders, at the same time as helping prisoners in that country, we will do that.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the effect of recent (a) changes in court staffing and (b) court closures on access to justice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

I assure the hon. Lady that any decision to close a court is taken incredibly carefully, but in circumstances in which 41% of courts were operating at half their available capacity in 2016-17, it is right that the Ministry of Justice considers how best to spend its resources. We are investing £1 billion in our courts, bringing them up to date, improving back-office systems and making it easier for people to access justice.

[Helen Hayes]

Three years ago, I expressed concerns about the impact that the closure of Lambeth county court would have on the efficiency of the court system and access to justice for my constituents. Lambeth was closed two years ago and the workload was moved to Clerkenwell and Shoreditch. Yesterday, I heard from a local legal aid solicitor that Clerkenwell and Shoreditch county court is completely overwhelmed, that delays of six to eight months to receive court directions are common, and that the contact centre cannot provide up-to-date information on cases. When will the Government act to sort out this shambolic mess?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that specific situation. The MOJ is taking a number of steps to improve court timeliness, which is of course important. We are digitising a number of services—people can now track their tribunal appeal online—and recruiting more judges to tribunals, with more than 225 recruited over the past year. I am happy to discuss that particular case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Helen Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment his Department has made of the effect of court closures on access to justice.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

2. What recent assessment his Department has made of the effect of court closures on access to justice.

[The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr David Gauke)]

Maintaining access to justice is a key principle when changes to the estate are proposed. Before issuing our consultation on court closures in January, we assessed the impact on access to justice—principally, the changes in travel time for court users. The decision to close a court is never taken lightly, and is made only after full public consultation and where we are satisfied that access to justice is maintained. Our reform programme will improve access to justice for many users, while allowing many needs to be met without the need to attend court. Online solutions and video hearings will make access to justice easier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I have been raising concerns about the closure of Lambeth county court for the past two years, and the court finally closed in December. My constituents facing the repossession of their homes must now attend Clerkenwell county court, which lawyers report to be a chaotic environment, which is impossible to contact by telephone, where cases and files frequently go missing and where the number of respondents failing to attend is rocketing. When will the Justice Secretary take action to address this unacceptable situation?

[Mr Gauke]

The reality is that we are undertaking a series of reforms, making much greater use of digital technology and increasing access to online ways of dealing with this. This is an important modernisation that the courts system needs.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

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

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 46 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; amendment 8 in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve); and new clause 16 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie).

The charter of fundamental rights is the most up to date, and therefore, in many respects, the most fit for purpose framework for the protection of human rights that UK citizens currently enjoy. It is broad based and comprehensive in its coverage but also specific in many aspects of its scope. Although the charter of fundamental rights draws together many rights and principles that are to be found elsewhere in legislation and case law, it also augments the legislation that predated it, and in doing so provides additional rights and protections to UK citizens that are not found anywhere else. It is not simply an amalgam of rights legislation that exists elsewhere in UK law, as the Government would have us believe.

The history of human rights legislation is cumulative. It has developed over centuries. Since Magna Carta, our understanding of the inalienable rights of all human beings has been growing, expanding and evolving, and legislation has been fought for and established in response. The charter of fundamental rights is the clearest articulation that we have of a 21st century commitment to human rights. It was developed painstakingly and collaboratively by all EU member states prior to its ratification in the Lisbon treaty, and it is therefore also a clear statement of our shared values and the aspects of our common humanity that bind us together and underpin the respect that we have for each other both within and across national borders.

The charter of fundamental rights is a deeply practical framework, which UK citizens rely on for protection every day. Article 1 enshrines human dignity as a right. Few would disagree that human dignity is a right, but the charter of fundamental rights is the only place in legislation that enshrines that right, affording the most basic protection to people in receipt of social care or medical treatment, among many other circumstances.

Article 8, the protection of personal data, is a new 21st century right, which provides a foundation of principle for the development of further specific legislation to protect the privacy of individuals and to regulate the use of data. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made use of that provision when making his case against the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, and I would therefore hope that he has no wish for this provision to be rescinded and for others to be denied this opportunity.

Article 21(1) is of particular importance for LGBT people as it is the only provision in international law ratified by the UK that expressly protects people from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. It adds a layer of protection over and above the provisions contained in the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act, and that protection would therefore be diminished without it.

Article 28, the right of collective bargaining and action, establishes the right of workers and employers to negotiate and conclude collective agreements and to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action. Workers can also rely on the charter to challenge laws that breach fundamental rights. For example, individuals working in the Sudanese embassy in the UK used the charter to successfully enforce their employment rights in the UK courts. There are countless such examples and workers would lose such powers if the charter no longer applied in the UK. This Government have already proved their commitment to weakening workers’ rights in their pernicious Trade Union Act 2016, so I am afraid we can have no confidence that the protection of such rights can be taken on trust for the future.

There are many other provisions that are unique to the charter of fundamental rights and without which the human rights protections afforded to UK citizens will be weakened. The charter applies to EU law, and the Government say that the Bill places all EU law on the UK statue book, but if the Government have their will, and the charter is not part of domestic law after exit day, the important additional rights it affords the British public will be lost. It is therefore simply not the case that this Bill is the simple cut-and-paste job the Government would have us believe it is.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Stronger children’s rights protections exist in the devolved nations, and Ministers in Wales are statutorily obliged to have due regard to children’s rights, as expressed in the UN convention on the rights of the child, when exercising any of their functions, unlike in England. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the Bill as it stands will remove the basic children’s rights safeguards offered by the EU charter of fundamental rights and prevent devolved nations from upholding the present arrangements and commitments to children’s rights into the future?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and she cites yet another powerful example of the extension of rights that is afforded by the charter to all our constituents, including those in the devolved nations.

I want to say a word now about the views of my constituents and to represent their views. My constituents voted overwhelmingly—by more than 75%—to remain in the EU. They did so for many reasons—some very practical, and others deeply principled—but in all of the many conversations I have had with my constituents since the referendum, the word they have used most often is “values”. My constituents voted to remain in the EU because the EU represents their values of tolerance, diversity and internationalism, and there is no clearer articulation of these values than the charter of fundamental rights.

Many of my constituents are deeply distressed by the EU referendum result, and they have been looking to the Government for comfort and for a negotiated Brexit deal based on the values we share with the EU. Adopting the charter of fundamental rights into UK law would send a strong signal about a continued basis of shared values with the EU and a commitment to uphold the highest standards of human rights protections as the foundation for any future trade deal with the EU. Without this commitment and this level of protection, the Government demonstrate once again that they have no commitment to high standards and that the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world risks being based on a race to the bottom in terms of protections for UK citizens.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

My constituents voted overwhelmingly, by 67%, to leave—there were variations around the country. I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech, but is she seriously suggesting that the main reason most of her 75% voted to remain was the charter of fundamental rights?

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is not my contention; my contention is that the charter of fundamental rights is a very clear articulation of one of the many reasons why my constituents voted so overwhelmingly for remain, and I seek to represent their views today, as I am sure he seeks to represent the views of his constituents in this important debate.

The charter is the most up-to-date human rights framework from which UK citizens benefit, and it is incomprehensible that the Government should not want to commit to the same high standard as the basis for all future human rights protections for UK citizens post Brexit and as a basis for continuing to develop UK human rights law. That they will not do so is revealing and deeply concerning.

My constituents did not vote for Brexit. But, above all, they did not vote for Brexit on any terms. They seek reassurance from the Government, and they do not find it in this deeply flawed Bill. It is essential that UK citizens can continue to rely on the highest standards of human rights protection post Brexit. I will continue to fight for that, and I will vote for these amendments.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I agree with her that human rights law is a developing area of law, but I do not agree that this Government have any intention of trying to undermine it.

We have heard a very interesting exposition of why the charter should not be translated into UK law. I accept that there are flaws with amendment 8, but I want to speak to it none the less because it is quite clear that, as I believe the Government have now accepted, the third category of rights needs some form of protection and incorporation, if it is not already protected.

The development of human rights law started out in the 1920s with the Geneva conventions. Those conventions were signed by a limited number of countries and were basically the fundamental guarantees of the rights of citizens when all law and order has broken down and they are facing the worst circumstances of war and chaos. That is the true meaning of the word “chaos”, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes). The law has moved on and changed, and countries that were never signatories to those conventions are now subject to their requirements because they are the basis of the minimum rights that should be guaranteed in any civilisation. Countries that fail to guarantee those rights get prosecuted under the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In future we will no doubt see actions on Syria, and other actions. The 1950 convention that we originally signed, which forms the basis of our Human Rights Act, has therefore moved on, and there are rights contained in the charter that are not in the Human Rights Act.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Helen Hayes Excerpts

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

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). It was interesting to hear him say that he does not wish to give the Government carte blanche; I think he omitted the phrase, “Unless they give us £1 billion.”

My constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, and I have been clear in my commitment to continue to speak up for their views. In Dulwich and West Norwood, we are deeply concerned about the impact of Brexit on the economy, on our public services, on our rights and protections at work, on our justice system, on our environment, and on our local communities. We are concerned about the practical impact of Brexit on the number of nurses in our NHS, on the number of construction workers building the homes we so desperately need, and on rising inflation as a consequence of the fall in the value of the pound. We are also concerned about the impact of Brexit on our British values of tolerance, diversity and internationalism.

Over the past year, this Government have done nothing at all to reach out to the 48% of voters who voted to remain—nothing to reassure us that our legitimate concerns are being listened to and will be addressed. The Prime Minister sought to strengthen her mandate to implement Brexit on her terms at the general election, but her mandate was weakened. If one thing is absolutely clear from the general election result, it is that the Government absolutely do not have a mandate to implement Brexit on any terms. They do not have a mandate to implement a harmful Brexit. They do not have a mandate to be dishonest with the British people about the impact that Brexit will have, or to skirt over the detail of important constitutional change, yet the Government persist in running scared of parliamentary scrutiny, and have responded to criticism and the clear feedback of the UK electorate not by engaging, reaching out and reassuring, but by closing down debate. The Bill as drafted would put huge and unaccountable power into the hands of Government Ministers and put crucial rights and protections at risk. It is nothing less than a power grab for Tory Ministers, and it fundamentally undermines parliamentary democracy.

The single biggest commitment made by the leave campaign was to spend an additional £350 million a week on our NHS. There is no sign whatsoever that the Government are even close to being able to fulfil this commitment. The longer the negotiations progress, the less confidence many people will have that the Government are capable of negotiating a Brexit deal that will protect our national interests. Yet in the EU withdrawal Bill, this minority Conservative Government are seeking permission to implement Brexit on any terms, at any cost, and that is simply not acceptable.

The article 50 process has already eroded Parliament’s role in relation to the Brexit negotiations, denying a meaningful vote on the Government’s proposed final deal, and we are now being asked to surrender control over the future direction of legislation that derives from the EU. This EU withdrawal Bill is designed to set a baseline of legislation for erosion and dismantling, with no mechanism for keeping pace with future developments in EU law, rather than a foundation for further development and a strengthening of rights and protections. The Government cannot expect the British people to have confidence that they will still be able to rely on the protections and regulations we currently receive from the EU when the EU withdrawal Bill, as currently drafted, would give the Government the power to vary regulations at will.

The promises made by the leave campaign and the Government in relation to Brexit are fast proving to be the emperor’s new clothes, and I, for one, am not afraid to say that I cannot see them. My constituents did not vote for Brexit, and they certainly do not accept it on any terms. The Brexit negotiations must take place in an open and transparent way, and they must be accountable to Parliament. If, as I suspect, these promises cannot be delivered by Brexit, we must have the opportunity to reject the Government’s deal and go back to the drawing board. I urge Members across the House, whether they are in favour of Brexit or not, to reject this Bill because it places too much power in the hands of too few Ministers, it compromises the sovereignty of Parliament, and, in doing so, it works—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Lloyd Russell-Moyle.