Shoreham Air Show Crash: Access to Justice

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I pay tribute to him and other neighbouring MPs who had constituents who were victims, as I extraordinarily did not. We have been able to act together to give some support and comfort to the families involved. Indeed, there was a public appeal that raised some £200,000, which has been distributed through the Sussex Community Foundation, and I have been on the board of that. I have seen at first hand the huge impact that this has had on families for whom the victims were the breadwinners. As well as going through the trauma of grieving, they have had to reinvent their lives. We need to be as supportive of these people as possible so that they can get through the formal processes, get their lives back on track and get some sort of closure. That is just not happening, which is why I have come back today to raise this matter again in the House.

As I have said, it is not assured that the inquest will go ahead this year, delaying yet further the opportunity for the families to get to the bottom of exactly what happened and achieve some degree of closure.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Tim Loughton]

I will, and then I want to make some progress before I run out of time.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, for leading all of us who have bereaved constituents and for the work he has done, particularly for my constituents in Heathfield. I think he is building on this case already, but I put it to him that with an inquest where all the others appearing will be represented and may have a certain drive to ensure that the inquest goes in one particular direction, and where there will be no prosecution as there would be in a court, it is even more imperative that the families get legal aid, to ensure that there is some semblance of balance for the coroner and guidance.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, to which I will come shortly. I again thank him for co-signing the letter to the Prime Minister and for joining us in this whole enterprise.

The families still have no idea whether anyone will be charged and held responsible for the deaths of their loved ones. That is disgraceful. There has been ping-pong between the police and the CPS as to whether files and complete information have been presented to the CPS. It was confirmed only at the beginning of December that all the files required were with the CPS. Of course we want a thorough investigation of what happened, but does it really need to take this long? The CPS needs to make a decision one way or the other as to whether a prosecution can go ahead, and if one cannot, it needs to explain fully to the families why there are not grounds for a prosecution. We are in a state of limbo that is holding up the entire process, which is completely unacceptable. Frankly, I would have hoped that the Law Officers would have played some part in nudging, at least, the CPS to expedite this matter.

Twenty-seven months on from the debate in which I urged that the first priority must be to give the families the support that they need in these difficult times, it is hard to see how that has been achieved as it should and could have been. I am afraid that the Prime Minister’s words when she stated that the families of the victims of a public disaster should be able to have proper representation ring rather hollow.

Why is the decision by the Legal Aid Agency not to permit funding under the exceptional case funding provisions introduced by LASPO in 2013 so patently wrong and unjust? Exceptional case funding is currently available for categories of law that are not in scope for legal aid and where failure to provide legal services would be in breach of an individual’s rights, within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998, or other enforceable EU rights relating to provision of legal services. Inquests have never fallen within the main body of legal aid provision. Currently, legal aid for inquests is available only at the discretion of the Legal Aid Agency under the exceptional case funding provisions, so this case is just the sort of eventuality that was envisaged when the fund was set up in the original LASPO Act. It has nothing to do with cuts in legal aid funding, as some have tried to claim.

The Law Society has supported this application and strongly believes that bereaved families should have access to legal representation where possible. As it has put it:

“The current definition of exceptional case funding does not provide an adequate ‘safety net’ for inquests. Applications for exceptional funding are highly complex and time consuming, requiring applicants to have an understanding of human rights law, and in the case of inquests, be able to show that there is an Article 2 (right of life) issue or a wider ‘public interest’”.

The application has also been supported by the West Sussex coroner, Penny Schofield, who specifically points to problems with the families uniquely being deprived of legal representation, which could lead to a more time-consuming inquest, costing more and denying justice to all on a level playing field. She has said:

“This is a highly complicated case. It involves areas of aviation law which are complex and technical in nature. Families will struggle to participate in the Inquest in any meaningful way without the assistance of legal representation.

The Inquest will engage a number of complex legal issues including article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is further complicated by the fact that I will be sitting with a Jury.

If the families are not represented it is likely that the Inquest, which is already likely to last up to 8 weeks, will take considerably longer…The outcome of this Inquest will have a wider public interest. The Inquest will allow for the identification of dangerous practices and/or systemic failings that could potentially be a significant risk to life, health or safety to others for those attending airshows or working in this environment in the future.”

She finishes her letter by saying:

“I would fully support any application for funding and would emphasise that in my view it is essential not only for the families but for the wider public at large.”

One cannot put it more clearly than that. Furthermore, other, non-family interested parties that are public bodies, and for which legal representation will come from public funds, include Sussex Police, the Civil Aviation Authority, the air accidents investigation branch and the Health and Safety Executive. They will get legal representation paid for out of public funds, but the family of a victim does not qualify.

I pay tribute to Stewarts Law, the solicitors who have represented most of the families pro bono and who have made the formal application for legal funding. They made a case for legal representation to involve an aviation specialist Queen’s counsel, supported by a junior counsel and solicitors from the five firms involved with the families across the board. They make the case that

“without the support of effective legal representation, it will be impossible for the families to participate in the inquest.”

They also make the case that funding should be required by article 2 of the ECHR, the right to life. As has already been said, the AAIB report raised serious questions about the protection of that right by certain public agencies—the systemic failure by the state and its agents in the safe regulation of public flying displays. That should constitute qualification under article 2.

The inquest will undertake an investigation into the cause of the accident. It will give the 11 families an understanding of the events that led to the deaths of their loved ones and enable them to participate in the fact-finding inquisitorial process. Unlike in the criminal investigation, the families have an opportunity to be involved in the inquest process and require legal assistance to do so—my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle made that point. The police have referred to the thousands of documents that will be provided to the coroner, and to which the families will have access, that will include technical evidence, lay evidence and witness testimony. Surely the families are entitled to proper legal scrutiny of those. Detailed specialised knowledge is necessary to understand the AAIB report and the supplementary oral evidence from the AAIB, and challenge it accordingly. Additionally, the volume of case documents in the inquest will be such that the families will further require legal expertise to assist in managing the documents and explaining their relevance to the proceedings. Therefore, a strong case was made in the application. It just defies logic that, in this exceptional case, the families have not qualified for exceptional case funding.

This inequality of arms is inequitable and could undermine the inquest’s ability to serve the public interest through a failure to protect rights under article 2 of the ECHR, with the families in effect being left to represent themselves with one hand tied behind their back. There clearly is a wider public interest, although it is refuted by the Legal Aid Agency. There is a wider public interest not least for the more than 300 civilian air shows that take place up and down the country. They have already been affected by the changes that the CAA introduced in the light of the AAIB investigation report, meaning that some have not been able to stay viable—insurance premiums have gone up in many cases. What is that if not a wider public interest? At the conclusion of the inquest, the coroner is able, under regulation 28 of and schedule 5 to the coroners rules, to make recommendations for changes to ensure improvements to air safety and to prevent future accidents. That is each family’s main aim: they wish to prevent similar deaths and to ensure that others do not have to endure this huge trauma and bereavement. That is a wider public interest.

Clearly, therefore, the Legal Aid Agency judgment is flawed. I have requested a meeting with the chief executive, Shaun McNally, which he has agreed to, after it has looked at things further. I gather that the board is still assessing the judgment. I urge it to apply the principles for which the exceptional case fund was established in the first place. In addition, I urge the Government to look at the Law Society recommendations about what the review of LASPO should change, including researching the reasons for the low level of exceptional case funding—the point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge.

There is also a wider issue about the inadequate way we fund legal representation for families of victims of multiple-death events. The issue is highlighted most starkly by the appalling delay in achieving justice for the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, which we have heard so much about in this place. In the report commissioned by the Home Office, “‘The patronising disposition of unaccountable power’”, the Right Reverend James Jones, the former Bishop of Liverpool and chair of the Hillsborough independent panel, said that there is a “pressing need” for bereaved families to have publicly funded legal representation at inquests at which public bodies are legally represented. I entirely agree. I have had discussions with the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), who has championed their cause, about achieving a level playing field in these fortunately rare but devastating cases. I have co-signed the letter to the Prime Minister to that effect and hope that the new Secretary of State for Justice and the new team will meet us to discuss that.

This is my ask of the Government and the Minister. First, despite the rules, the Government should find some way to step in and underwrite funding for legal representation of the families urgently, and well before the review of LASPO. Secondly, Law Officers need to put pressure on the CPS to make a decision one way or the other and fully explain it as a matter of urgency. In the longer term, they need to look at the how we ensure that families affected by such tragedies have full recourse to proper legal representation on a level playing field.

This was an exceptional tragedy. It was a tragedy not only for the families, but for the local community, which still bears the scars of what happened, and for the country as a whole, when the spotlight and the cameras were on the small town in my constituency for those days back in August. It was an exceptional tragedy, and it needs an exceptional response from Ministers and the Government. I hope the Minister will give some assurances that that might now happen.

Parole Board and Victim Support

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I will look at that case and, if I may, respond to the hon. Gentleman subsequently in greater detail.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Rather than welcoming the Lord Chancellor to his position, may I tell him how sorry those who worked for him until yesterday will be that he is no longer at the Department for Work and Pensions? I welcome what he said about the transparency of Parole Board decisions, but may I urge him to put a timescale on when the House will know more? It is important for the public to be reassured that the Worboys case will not be forgotten and that we will not move on without a change.

[Mr Gauke]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. As for the timescale, I said earlier that I expect the review to conclude by Easter.

Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill

Huw Merriman Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 20th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

My original suggestion was that it should be six months on a summary offence and 12 months on an indictable offence, but the Government decided that they would prefer it to be 12 months on either. Because I am in an emollient mood, I decided to go along with the Government. That may be a question for the Government, today or in Committee. There is an argument for holding the Committee stage on the Floor of the House on one of the days that might be empty over the next few weeks, given the legislative programme.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so many times. He will be aware that the Attorney General can review unduly lenient sentencing for certain offences. I have called for that to be extended to offences against police officers, which the hon. Gentleman has referenced. Will he consider the possibility that, in Committee, the offences in the Bill could be wrapped into that extended power?

[Chris Bryant]

That is a good point, which had not occurred to me. The hon. Gentleman has made a good case for being on the Bill Committee, and that is up to me. The Bill Committee may be growing, however, so we may have to persuade the Government Whips; I have found that if one talks nicely to Government Whips, they are sometimes helpful. We might want to bring Committee or Report to the Floor of the House so that everyone can consider the proposals.

The second thing the Bill does is mirror, in clause 2, the provisions in part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. That Act made any offence aggravated when it was based on hostility to the victim’s race, religion, sexual orientation, disability or transgender nature. That statutory definition of aggravated offences built on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which stipulated that certain offences would attract longer sentences if they were racially or religiously motivated. So clause 2 of my Bill will put an assault perpetrated against an emergency worker on a legal par with a hate crime, and I think that that is the appropriate way to go. It means that the court must state, in open court, that the crime is so aggravated and must treat as an aggravating factor the fact that the offence was committed in such a way.

Clause 3 defines an emergency worker. Thanks to a glitch, I think the definition is not quite right, and we will want to improve it in Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I congratulate —not thank, because he does not want me to do that—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for all the work that they do here.

As we have heard, there is currently protection within the law for anybody who is the victim of assault, and protection in the enhanced sentencing regime guidelines for anybody who is carrying out the work of public service, so why do we need to change the law? The NHS England statistics on assaults tell us why. In 2011-12, there were 59,744 assaults on workers in the NHS in England, and that figure rose to 70,555 in 2016. Quite clearly, the law is not working.

Without wanting to take up too much time, I will refer to some of the feedback I have received from the A&E department in the area of east Sussex that I represent. Here are a few examples from just one doctor:

“Held in a room with a patient threatening me with scissors. Punched in the face on my first emergency department job. One of my juniors got held up against the wall by a bloke who called her a slut and spat in her face. Recently threatened by a bloke I was stuck in a room with whilst pregnant. Sure I could think of more.”

There are many similar examples.

That takes me to the point that I would really like the hon. Member for Rhondda to think about in Committee. How much consideration has been given to the question of how many of the 70,555 offences against NHS staff would be covered by the draft legislation? Would they all be covered because they are all within the sphere of emergency services? Do they all count as emergency workers, or are the vast proportion of them outside that sphere, because they work in other wards and non-emergency settings? If they are outside it, I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it would be worth widening the scope of the Bill to extend the protection to non-emergency services so that it covers not just emergency workers, but those who do other, related, healthcare work. If the Bill covers all those who need protection, I will absolutely welcome it.

I recognise that there is a danger of extending the scope so much that it covers practically all public sector workers. We could well end up with additional enhancements for everyone bar lawyers and estate agents—God forbid—in which case we would have lost sight of the original drift. I ask for the Bill to cover hospitals, and to ensure that the NHS is a safe place, because the situation has got out of control, as the figures show. Those who work in the NHS deserve our protection, but the number of assaults on NHS workers show that something has gone wrong. I would like the NHS as a whole to be given this special protection to send a strong message that such assaults will not be tolerated. We must do everything that is necessary to show people that the NHS is a profession in which they will be safe and in which we want them to work.

I would be delighted to work with the hon. Gentleman on the Bill. I absolutely support it, and I look forward to the possibility that the definitions will be widened in Committee to give this protection to even more people.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Huw Merriman Excerpts

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

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).

I believe that this is the first speech I have made on Britain leaving the European Union. The reason for my remaining unusually silent in this place is that back when the referendum was announced, I took a decision to not go to my constituents and tell them which way they should vote, but to try to remain impartial and provide them with information on both sides of the argument. I did so as a point of principle. I took the view that, having asked people to vote for me in 2015 so they could have a referendum, I wanted it to be their decision as to how their vote should be determined. I wanted to bring them information. I did so by holding 10 debates across the constituency and by going to 25 schools in the final week. I was, of course, very willing to give my own view as to which way I was going to vote, so at 9.59 pm on referendum day I announced that I had voted to remain. I then found out that 60% of my constituents disagreed with me, because they had voted to leave.

Having tried to provide information on what article 50 would mean in the event that we left and what the Prime Minister’s reformed EU would look like if we remained, I took the view that I was duty bound to follow the mandate given to me by the people. That is why I voted, along with 498 Members, to trigger article 50. Having said that I would follow that instruction, I am now duty bound to become greatly and passionately interested in the shape of our EU departure. I very much intend to do that.

I am still drawn to the Norwegian argument that those on the remain side used as a reason why we should stay. We do not want to be a member of the single market, but be unable to influence its shape and have to pay into its obligations. I still find that an attractive argument and that is why I now advocate leaving the single market and the customs union. I firmly believe that the way we can shape the new future is not by trying to look back at the past, but by forging a brand new future.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not then agree with the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, who said on 7 September in The Spectator that the UK should stay in the single market?

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me when I said that I believe we should leave the single market. I can pinpoint the particular reason. If we are going to follow the instructions our constituents gave us, at least let us be bold, ambitious and look outside the club of 27 member states who, frankly, have not allowed some of the poorest countries to trade with that block. We should now set our sights on helping those countries and forging links with them in a way that has not been possible thus far. There is, therefore, an ethical reason for leaving the single market and the customs union, and for forging a new way forward.

As one of the 498 MPs who triggered article 50, I look at the approximately 150 MPs who were not willing to do so. I can perhaps understand why they are not willing to support Second Reading. The Bill will preserve all EU law when we leave the EU. The 150 MPs do not wish us to leave the EU, so I can see, logically, why they are not willing to vote for Second Reading. I would, however, just make the point that it was the same ballot box that returned them to this place that they choose to disregard when it comes to the referendum. That leaves us with the remaining 498 MPs. We hear that many of them will not support Second Reading this evening. I can understand those who always wished the UK to leave the EU not wanting to retain EU laws but to get on with repeal straightaway, but I have not heard any voices on either side of the House advocating that position. I am working on the basis, therefore, having heard of no other mechanism for retaining EU law on day one, that there is no alternative to the Bill.

Why, then, will hon. Members not vote for the principle of the Bill on Second Reading? I am saying not that the Bill cannot be improved but that the Government will listen to ideas on how it can be improved—I can testify to that having had a conversation with the ministerial team today and fixed a meeting to walk through some of those improvements. On clause 6, for example, on the interpretation of EU law following departure, I have concerns that the lower courts will be required to follow retained EU case law and retained EU general principles. It appears that they will not be able to depart from EU case law but that the Supreme Court will. If a decision is taken by the lower courts on EU general principles, however, will the Supreme Court be able to depart on that basis?

There are issues to iron out, therefore, but notwithstanding all the intelligent arguments we have heard from lawyers in this place, the prime driver for me is the need to make suggestions and make this work. It behoves us to make it work. In a previous job, I took many cases through the court process, including the Supreme Court, and the more assistance we can give the Supreme Court with interpretation and the smooth administration of law, the greater the benefits we will all reap in the future.

But that is for another day. Tonight is all about whether we are willing to see all preserved EU rights and laws retained on day one, so as to deliver a smooth departure, retain the rights that many hon. Members want retained and ensure that we make a success of our leaving. I was willing to listen to other arguments, but I have heard none advanced, apart—I am afraid to say—from pure politics. I do not believe that our constituents, regardless of which way they voted, want politics on this subject; they want us to get on with the job and deliver a successful Brexit, not just for them but for the country and world at large.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gyimah]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously aware that the IPP tariff was introduced by the last Labour Government, and abolished by the Conservative Administration in 2012. Our efforts are now focused on giving IPP prisoners the support, opportunities and motivation to progress more quickly so that, when they are reviewed by the parole board, they have the best possible prospect of securing release. We are tackling delays in the system and have identified what more needs to be done. A specific unit is looking at individual cases in order to progress them as quickly as possible.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

13. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that prisoners work and earn while they serve their sentences.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)]

We are launching new performance metrics that will measure not only the amount of work taking place in prisons but the percentage of prisoners who secure employment on release, and we will use those measurements to hold governors to account. We are also creating new apprenticeships in areas where there are skill shortages, such as construction, retail, catering, logistics and digital, so that prisoners can go into relevant roles.

[Huw Merriman]

We know that paid work transforms lives. Rather than provide purely menial work or training, will the Lord Chancellor require prisoners to pay their way via skilled employment, which can continue when their sentences end?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is correct. We are taking an outside-in approach: we are finding employers who have jobs to offer on the outside, and they then start to deliver training on the inside, so that the individual goes straight into an apprenticeship or employment on release. We already have a very successful scheme involving Land Securities and Halfords, and we are building up the number of employers that are part of that arrangement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

Yes, I do. It has sometimes been the habit in the past for people to be greeted with a report from the National Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee and attempt to suggest that it is an exercise in—well, there have been criticisms in the past. I certainly do not criticise the PAC or the NAO. The report is a welcome wake-up call. My right hon. Friend the victims Minister will bring forward a Green Paper with details on how we can better help victims and witnesses, but there is much that we need to do to improve the criminal justice system, and our judiciary get it.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I, too, attended the all-party group on autism’s visit to Feltham and was inspired by what the governor and his team are doing. Will the prisons Minister consider using the forthcoming prisons Bill to improve the life chances of the 5% of the prison population who are estimated to suffer with autism?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for showing serious interest in the issue. I was pleased that he was able to go to Feltham yesterday. I am not sure that we need to legislate; we need to spread the good practice from Feltham across the prison system, and I hope that the reform prison governors will be in the lead in doing that.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

In the past few months I have met a number of constituents who have been impacted by these changes. They detailed how the increases in the state pension age have had an impact on them owing to their being on the wrong side of the dateline. I have every sympathy with them, and I understand their frustration.

I spoke during the Back-Bench business debate on this matter on 7 January, and I congratulated the WASPI campaign on driving the debate. Although it is true that any criteria changes regarding pensions, benefits or taxation in general are always going to have an impact on some people, I am conscious that many of the individuals we are talking about have worked for decades on the basis that they would receive their pensions at a prescribed time. However, I am also conscious that when actuaries calculated life expectancy, and therefore the number of years for which a pension would pay out, they did not expect it to reach the level that many currently enjoy, and they would not have anticipated the current rising levels of health. Those factors have driven successive Governments, and most OECD nations, to increase the pension age.

The issue I have with the motion is that it deals with legislation that was settled in previous Parliaments. It implores the use of

“transitional arrangements for women adversely affected”.

My understanding is that when the last set of changes were made in 2011, a transitional programme was implemented, to the tune of over £1 billion. In order to manage expectations, it would be better if the motion had recognised that changing these rules for those impacted would cost £39 billion and then outlined where the additional money would be saved in Government spending in order to pay for it to be delivered. I spoke earlier today about the need for the Government to continue to support spending on mental health provision, particularly for young people. Would that be hit? Would it be the police budget, the subject of the next Opposition day motion, which is critical about the lack of funding?

I stood on a manifesto commitment pledging the delivery of a budget surplus by 2020, which means that compensation in this matter would have to be paid for by another group of my constituents. Opposition parties also attempted to cost their commitments in their manifestos. I do not recall finding a commitment to reverse this policy, and it concerns me that we are not managing expectations. This issue is already settled, and none of the parties seeking to reopen it has explained where the £39 billion hit would be taken were we to rip up the equalisation rules.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because it enables me to make the point that I wanted to make to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). To put this in context, if we compare the £39 billion with the approximately £120 billion annual spend on the NHS, we begin to see how difficult it is to make the sums add up. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Huw Merriman]

I absolutely do. When it comes to footing the bill, I also have concerns about another age group in my constituency—those in their 20s and 30s. They are sometimes referred to as the packhorse generation because they are saddled with debts from university, which I, and many others of my age group and those older than me did not have to endure; they are less likely to be in receipt of occupational pension schemes; they are paying high rents and struggling to afford a home of their own; and they are likely to be the subject of pension changes in decades to come, if life expectancy continues to increase.

Half-measured mitigation, even if it were introduced, would reveal the next pension age group to be impacted, and we would never be able to move on. The issue of pensions is becoming increasingly vexed. Post-retirement life expectancy is undoubtedly much greater than was envisaged when pensions calculators were put in place. Additionally, with advances allowing those in their sixties to remain fit and active, many people in their sixties and beyond are working in a manner that was not envisaged when those pensions calculators were put in place.

There has been a general change in life and working-age expectancy, which we all rightly celebrate because it shows that many people are living longer and leading fitter lives in their advanced years. However, it also means that there is a funding gap, and to avoid placing a financial obligation on those in their 20s and 30s, who are struggling to get on, the country has had to revise the pension age to take into account the changes in life and work expectancy.

This is a settled matter. Until it can be explained to me which of the current spending commitments will be axed to cover the cost of this £39 billion change, I cannot support this motion.

State Pension Age (Women)

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) and for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) on securing this debate.

In the past few months, I have met a number of my constituents who have been impacted by these changes. These constituents have detailed how the state pension age increases have had an impact on them owing to their being on the wrong side of the dateline. I have every sympathy with anyone impacted by these changes, and I can see why they have felt so much frustration. I congratulate the WASPI campaign on driving this debate.

Although it is true that any criteria changes regarding pensions, benefits or taxation in general are always going to have an impact on some people, I am conscious that the individuals we are talking about have, in many circumstances, worked for decades on the basis that they would receive their pensions at a prescribed time. However, I am also conscious of the fact that when actuaries calculated life expectancy, and therefore the number of years for which a pension would pay out, they did not expect it to reach the level currently enjoyed, and they would not have anticipated the current rising levels of health. These factors have driven successive Governments, and most OECD nations, to increase the pension age.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not however accept that life expectancy is not the same for everybody everywhere? There are places in Glasgow where life expectancy is significantly lower than in other parts of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman]

I absolutely take that point, but it would be naive not to recognise that as we live and expect to live healthier lives, we not only can but want to work for longer.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Merriman]

No. I will make some progress, if I may.

The question remains: what, if anything, can be done to lessen the impact on those who will now have to work for longer before qualifying for their state pension, particularly those who it can be demonstrated were not notified over time, as they should have been?

[Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my constituents in Eastleigh that the notice period for some of the women was simply far too short? We hope that the Minister will agree it is a great cause of regret that the largest group of women affected by the pension age increase sadly got less than eight years to plan for it.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I know she has led a campaign in her constituency to that end. Ideally, we will hear such a statement from the Minister. I believe pension changes require 10 years’ notification and that 15 years’ notice was given for the 1995 changes, but, as she mentioned, the notice period for the 2011 changes was eight years, and even down to five years. As I was not in this place at that time, I am certainly very keen to find out more from the Minister.

Where I have issues with the motion is that although I agree very much with the concern raised, I do not ultimately see a remedy. I stood on a manifesto commitment that pledged us to deliver a budget surplus by 2020, which means that compensation for this matter would have to be paid for by another group of my constituents.

I have real concerns about another age group in my constituency—those in their 20s and 30s. They are sometimes referred to as the packhorse generation because they are saddled with debts from university, which I and many others of my age group and those older than me did not have to endure. They are not in receipt of occupational pension schemes. They are paying high rents and struggling to afford a home of their own, and they are likely to be the subject of pension changes in decades to come if life expectancy continues to increase.

[Mhairi Black]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Huw Merriman]

No. With respect to the hon. Lady, I will make some progress, if I may.

I am keen for the Government to assess what more can be done to help the women impacted by the pension changes, but I am conscious that, before my election to this place, they conducted a review and allocated more than £l billion to mitigate the impact on the worst affected. Further mitigation, if introduced, would then reveal the next age group to be impacted, and we would never be able to move on. If my Government’s manifesto is to be enacted, such further mitigation will have to be paid for by others in the form of increased taxes.

The issue of pensions is becoming increasingly vexed. It is undoubtedly the case that post-retirement life expectancy is now much greater than was envisaged when pensions calculators were put in place. Additionally, with the advances made to allow those in their 60s to remain fit and active, many people in their 60s and beyond are working in a manner that was not envisaged when those pensions calculators were put in place. This is a general change in life and working age expectancy—we all rightly celebrate it, because it shows that people are living longer and leading fitter lives in their advanced years—but it means that there is a funding gap. To avoid placing a financial obligation on those in their 20s and 30s, who are currently struggling to get on, that gap has required the country to revise the pension age to take into account the changes in life and work expectancy.

[Mhairi Black]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will take one last intervention as this is the hon. Lady’s debate.

[Mhairi Black]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see that by forcing such women to continue to work until they are 66, he is contradicting himself? One of the reasons why people my age cannot get work is that it is being done by those trying to secure some income until they reach the pension age.

[Huw Merriman]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point, but I do not agree with her. The reality is that if the change had not been implemented, £30 billion would have had to be found from elsewhere. I think there is an additional £8 billion in tax revenue to be found as well. Where would that money come from if not from the generation that she knows well?

[Mhairi Black]

rose—

[Huw Merriman]

I will continue to make progress. To me, it is a complete contradiction to say, on the one hand, that something needs to be done, but, on the other, that it will not have an impact on any other taxpayers over the generations.

Finally, I have the greatest sympathy for those caught by the changes who have had to revise their plans accordingly. This, however, is a settled matter, and I worry about what the impact will be on others if changes are now made.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Assisted Dying (No. 2) Bill

Huw Merriman Excerpts

Friday 11th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

I will be voting in favour of the Bill. Having today reached my decision, I want to set out briefly the factors that made the merits of the Bill outweigh my concerns. I have heard it argued that the Bill will not help those who are locked in a coma and are without the capacity to administer their own death. This argument holds true, and I would be unable to vote for the Bill if its scope were so wide, as there would not be enough safeguards. However, the Bill is limited in its applicability.

I have heard it said that this Bill will be subject to a much wider interpretation by the courts than that which I have described. I do not discount that, but I have greater faith in both the wording of the Bill, particularly over the need for the prognosis to be terminal and for death to occur within six months, and in the reluctance of our courts to make law where the drafting is already clear and settled.

I have also heard the argument that enacting the Bill today would make it easier for future Parliaments to amend and broaden the applicability beyond those with terminal illness perhaps to those suffering from mental illness. I hope that that does not occur, but I have grappled with the persuasive argument that if this House opens the door and leaves it ajar, it will make it easier to open the door wide thereafter. If this House failed to legislate on the basis that a future House could broaden legislation, we would never produce laws at all. Ultimately, I concluded that I should make my decision based on the Bill before me, not on a hypothetical draft that may never be read.

The crux of my reasoning, which ultimately allows me to weigh up the arguments and vote in favour of the Bill, is the desire to grant a right to those who may require it and will be impacted by exercising it. This right is not for those who wrote to me, often citing religious reasons why life should not be capable of being ended prematurely. This right is not for those who will see out their final days of a terminal illness and rely on excellent palliative care. Those people would not utilise this law. This Bill is for the smaller number of people who wish to exercise their right to die earlier in their final six months—before they fade away in front of their family, before they enter a desperate period that they feel they cannot face, before they believe they will lose their dignity. It is for those people, with their own individual reasons, that I will cast my vote today to allow them this right.