Refugees from Ukraine

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

As I said earlier, we are looking at all categories, including Ukrainians on work visas and even student visas, and how we can make that happen.

[Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)]

I welcome today’s announcement and thank the Home Secretary for listening to the House. My constituent Larry Sullivan owns a technology business in Russia and has some very able young software engineers desperate to get here. They would make a big contribution to the UK economy. They are fanatically against Putin’s war of aggression. Is there a route for them to come here before Putin slams the door shut?

[Priti Patel]

If I may, I will come back to my right hon. Friend and discuss that with him, because there will be ways.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent debate to listen to, even though I have the most astonishing feeling of déjà vu about it. Perhaps it is the flu I have been suffering all week, or the massive doses of Lemsip or Berocca I took this morning, but I do feel as though we have been through all this before about five weeks ago and absolutely nothing seems to have changed.

Nevertheless, I am glad to be here and I am delighted to see the Foreign Secretary in his place for the first time this year, safely returned from his recess travels and basking in the success of his new vision for post-Brexit Britain, which he unveiled in Singapore, namely that we are to become the “invisible chain” linking countries across the globe. It is a truly inspiring phrase, but colleagues may not realise that the inspiration has an unlikely source, because the phrase, “The Invisible Chain”, first originated as the Spanish language title of the 1943 film, “Lassie Come Home”. It is a beloved children’s classic: the story of a desperate family who are down to their lowest ebb, with no answers to their problems, but whose fortunes are rescued at the last moment by the return of their beloved dog. Here is the truth: the Cabinet is not waiting for unicorns to come riding over the hill; it is just waiting for Lassie.

It is no wonder that the Foreign Secretary’s vision of the invisible chain has been so enthusiastically embraced by his dog-loving Cabinet colleagues, including the Health Secretary, with his invisible Green Paper on social care; the Transport Secretary, with his invisible ferries and invisible traffic jams; and, of course, the Prime Minister running around Europe obtaining invisible concessions on Brexit.

That brings us to the crux of today’s debate. Here we are, five weeks after we had the same debate, and so many Members on both sides of the House have pointed out that there is nothing in the withdrawal agreement in relation to home affairs and foreign policy, let alone any other subject, that is in any way different from what we discussed on 5 December.

Let me summarise those contributions that have made that point best. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the shadow Home Secretary, demonstrated with absolute clarity that this deal jeopardises all the co-operation with the European Union that we have come to rely on in the fields of justice, security and policing, and therefore we cannot accept it. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) made it clear in his typically enjoyable speech that the issues of the Northern Ireland border remain totally unresolved. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made the vital point—I have no doubt that many Conservative Members agree with him—that it remains the case that the deal on the table delivers no control of our laws, no control of our borders, and no control of our money. In fact, it cedes control to Europe by giving us no say on those issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made it clear that the lack of changes to the Prime Minister’s deal means that the economic damage it would do to investment and jobs remains unaltered. That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who pointed out the major problems over recruitment and retention across multiple business sectors in his constituency that are reliant on migrant labour. We also heard a powerful and important contribution from my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on the hopeless inadequacy of the Government’s proposal to deliver a fair system for immigration.

My hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) made it clear that wherever people are in this country, and whichever of our nations they live in, our constituents overwhelmingly reject this hopeless deal. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) reminded us, it would be an even greater disaster for our country—from our factories to our universities—if we crash out without a deal.

All of those contributions, and the many others we have heard from colleagues, have laid bare the fact that nothing has been achieved during the five weeks of delay. Nothing has changed in terms of the withdrawal agreement, and nothing of substance or principle has been done to change the mind of any Member, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—[Interruption.] Just one Member changing their mind in five weeks is not necessarily a huge contribution; Conservative Members should not get too excited. It is still likely that the agreement will be voted down next week.

We have been told that there will be assurances from the European Union—no changes to the withdrawal agreement, no changes written into law, just a set of assurances. I hope we all remember the words of the Prime Minister’s deputy, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, when he spoke from the Dispatch Box in 2015, as the then Minister for Europe, in relation to a similar situation, when David Cameron was supposed to be renegotiating Britain’s membership of the European Union. He said that

“we will not ask the House to rely only on the words of Ministers from the Dispatch Box. We have made a commitment to introduce into the Bill changes that give expression to the assurances that we have given.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2015; Vol. 597, c. 234.]

This morning we heard the Foreign Secretary say the same thing:

“Theresa May has said she doesn’t just want words. She wants something with legal force.”

Based on what he said this morning, and on the position the Government took four years ago, when David Cameron was renegotiating, does the Foreign Secretary accept that the assurances that the Prime Minister is obtaining from other European leaders will not be worth the paper on which they have hastily been written if they are not also written into law? If that is the case, will he confirm that, before next Tuesday, formal amendments will be made to the withdrawal agreement? If he does not accept that and accepts that this will not happen, the Conservative Back Benchers and the DUP will be quite within their rights to reject the withdrawal agreement, just as they planned to do in December, on the grounds that it will remain fatally flawed. However, I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary knows that there will not be legally binding changes to the withdrawal agreement over the next four days, so the only real question at issue is what will happen after next Tuesday once the Prime Minister’s deal is rejected. As ever, the Foreign Secretary has given us a multitude of answers on this subject. The problem is that he gives us a different answer depending on what audience he is speaking to. Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph before Christmas, he said that if we had to leave without a deal, Britain would “flourish and prosper” in that scenario, but he then told reporters in Singapore that the disruption caused by a no-deal outcome is

“not something that any Government should willingly wish on its people.”

This week, at Cabinet, when the Work and Pensions Secretary said that history would take a “dim view” of a Cabinet that allowed Britain to leave without a deal and the Justice Secretary said that they would need an alternative plan instead, the Foreign Secretary went back to insisting that no deal was the preferred option. And yet here we are three days later with the Foreign Secretary on the “Today” programme saying that no deal will not happen and that the most likely scenario after Tuesday is that Brexit will not happen at all. I ask the Foreign Secretary to give us some clarity today not on what he expects to happen after Tuesday when the Prime Minister’s deal is voted down, but on what he believes should happen after that point. In particular, on the most vital issue of all, can he make it clear whether he is prepared to countenance this country leaving the European Union on 31 March without a deal?

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Let me give the right hon. Lady that clarity, because what I have said has always been completely consistent. I do not want us to leave without a deal—there would be a lot of disruption if we did—but if we were in that situation, I believe that, in the end, this country is strong enough to find a way to flourish and prosper.

[Emily Thornberry]

The trouble is that that does not seem to be what the Foreign Secretary said on the radio this morning. I am just holding him to account. He cannot go round telling all sorts of different people different things and not expect us to be listening. We are listening. We are the Opposition and we will hold you to account and you need to be consistent because you are in government and you are supposed to be in a leadership position. That is the point, and that is the point of this debate. As I say, to give all these accounts and to try to be consistent is what we wish him to do. Should he also not accept this? He said, as I understand it, back in 2016, that we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people either in a referendum or through a fresh general election, and he said that

“we will trust the British people to decide on whether or not it is a good deal”.

If he thought that that was the right course of action to pursue in the event of securing a deal, surely the Foreign Secretary accepts that that is the only course of action to pursue if there is no deal at all.

[Mr Hunt]

And we have had that general election, and 80% of voters supported parties that wanted to leave the EU and the single market. As she has mentioned consistency, will she give a straight yes or no answer: does Labour, or does Labour not, want to end free movement?”

[Emily Thornberry]

When we leave the European Union, free movement will end. It is our policy that there should be fair rules and managed migration. We believe that immigration should look after our economy and should look after our communities. That is the answer; it is a full answer, and it has been consistent. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to listen to what the Labour party has said with the consistency with which we will be listening to what he says, he will find that we are consistent and that our policy is clear. Unless he has any other questions on Labour’s policy, I propose to sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

What excellent timing, Mr Speaker, because the right hon. Lady has just said—I think—that Labour does want to end free movement, without then explaining how it will deliver frictionless trade with no more barriers than we currently have, which is Labour’s policy, even though she knows the European Union will never accept that. I do not think we will take any lessons on consistency from the Opposition.

We have had an excellent debate today and I commend all hon. Members who have spoken. It is a shame that the shadow Home Secretary is not in her place for the end of the debate. I thank the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for her reference to one of my favourite childhood films, “Lassie Come Home”. Of course in that story, Lassie was given to a member of the aristocracy, the Duke of Rudling, but Lassie was not happy and she broke free, without any kind of referendum, and came home. There is a lesson for all of us.

Today’s debate has focused on immigration and the central point, made so eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is that leaving the EU allows the Government, for the first time in almost 40 years, to respond to public concern by restoring sovereign control over immigration policy. Part of that, of course, will be to be generous to EU citizens who live among us and contribute so magnificently to our national life.

If the shadow Home Secretary had been here, I would have reassured her, as I do the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and others who raised the rights of EU citizens in this country. Part two of the withdrawal agreement describes how EU citizens currently living in the UK will enjoy broadly the same rights after we leave. Indeed, if we leave without a deal, the Government have made it clear that our position will be the same. While the shadow Home Secretary was correct to remind us that we are talking about the lives of real people—our friends, colleagues and neighbours—I respectfully suggest that it does not help to say that there is any doubt whatsoever about the status of EU citizens, when in fact there is no doubt. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) spoke passionately about the effect of uncontrolled migration on her constituency and how it risked dividing communities. She, along with many Government Members, will therefore understand the significance of restoring parliamentary sovereignty.

We have not talked just about migration today. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for emphasising the obligation that falls on all of us to honour the referendum decision. Although I did not hear all those speeches, one of the most powerful contributions came from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who said that if we do not deliver Brexit, it will confirm people’s deepest fears about the conceit of the political class.

To her credit, when the shadow Home Secretary was here, she was clear that we have to honour the referendum vote. What the Government say to Opposition Members is, “If you really do want to honour the vote, stop playing parliamentary games and remember that leave-voting Labour voters will never forgive the Labour party if it uses parliamentary procedures in a way that ends up stopping Brexit.”

I say to the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and others who called for a second referendum that they risk doing profound damage to the integrity of our political system. It cannot be right to ask the British people to vote again in the hope of producing a different result. They should listen to the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson), who talked about the breach of trust there would be between politicians and the people who gave them their jobs if we failed to honour the referendum result.

[Jo Stevens]

The Foreign Secretary has spoken about trust and validity. Does he accept that, as I said in my speech, the illegality during the referendum has already caused mistrust? People doubt the validity of the outcome of the referendum because of the things that went on, which have been found by our regulators, the Information Commissioner and the Electoral Commission.

[Mr Hunt]

This is a matter for the Electoral Commission, but exaggerated claims were made on both sides of that debate, as indeed—I think this is fair to say—they are generally made on both sides in general election campaigns. However, people listened to those claims on both sides, and they came to a democratic decision, and that is the foundation of trust in our country between politicians and the people who give them their jobs.

[Luciana Berger]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), does the Foreign Secretary accept that many points of evidence and facts have come to light that were not available at the time? In 2016, the referendum was on the principle of our leaving; now we know exactly what it looks like in practice. On the basis of what we now know and from listening to what our constituents and the country want—we only have to look at the polling, which is being done almost daily, to know that this country has moved—they now, seeing the reality of it, actually want to have a final say on the Government’s exact deal, rather than on the principle, as back in 2016.

[Mr Hunt]

I gently say to the hon. Lady that last year we had a general election in which both parties set out what they thought the shape of the Brexit deal should be, and over 80% of voters voted for parties that wanted to leave the EU and leave the single market.

The task before us is to recast our relationship with our nearest neighbours while preserving the bonds of friendship that all of us in this House prize so highly. We need to go about that task with every confidence in our strengths as a nation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex rightly reminded us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex brought home the momentous importance of this task, reminding us, with the sense of history we admire so much, that this is one of the most important decisions the House has taken since the war. As he powerfully said, the moment has come for all Members to come together in the national interest.

On defence and security, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) spoke with passion and eloquence—partly in French—et je voudrais dire à mon amie, “Ne t’inquiète pas”. Contrary to Sir Richard Dearlove and Lord Guthrie, that means, “Don’t worry”, because there will be absolutely no impact whatsoever from the withdrawal agreement on our relationship with NATO, our intelligence partnership with the United States or, indeed, our membership of the “Five Eyes”.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Perhaps my right hon. Friend and I will continue in English for everyone else’s pleasure. My concern is not what is in the Dearlove and Guthrie letter, but my assessment of the combination of the political declaration and parts of the withdrawal agreement which, put together, give me—in my own simple understanding—real concerns about the future risk. I would be very grateful if he would sit down with me and look through them in detail because they are genuine concerns. They do not come from anyone else; they are my own assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I would of course be absolutely delighted to do so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was concerned to read in the draft withdrawal agreement the phrase that there will be increased intelligence co-operation. I asked the Prime Minister about this on 10 December, and she said there is no problem with the “Five Eyes” agreement—none whatsoever.

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want to reassure everyone in this House that it is a paramount negotiating objective for the Government to make sure that we maintain an independent foreign and security policy. It always has been, incidentally, and it always will be.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) was right to warn about the dangers of xenophobia and small-minded isolationism. No one in this House would think in those terms. However, he is totally wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) said, to suggest that the view of Conservative Members in any way reflects that approach. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, within the framework of the new immigration policy, there will be no cap on the number of skilled workers who can enter the UK.

The hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree and for Oxford West and Abingdon spoke about the impact of leaving the EU on our universities. I can reassure them that the new immigration policy means there will be no limit on the number of international students who can study in our universities. This is very important because our international reputation benefits immensely from the excellence of our universities. We are coming to a close, but one group whose rights we have not talked about is the nearly 1 million Brits living in Europe, The withdrawal agreement protects their rights as well.

In conclusion, as time is marching on and the weekend approaches, we are now in the final stages of leaving a supranational organisation that has been central to our national life for 46 years. We all have deeply held opinions on this issue, but the voters who sent us here are looking for hon. Members to reach consensus on the way ahead. Britain’s friends across the world—the Governments I deal with every day—hope and expect that we will leave the EU in an orderly way and emerge as a reinvigorated ally on the international stage. Let us rise to the moment, meet those expectations and show that whatever our views may be—leaver or remainer—we are democrats, and proud to be in one of the oldest democracies in the world, where we do what the people tell us.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has talked the matter into the buffers.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

I have seen off four shadow Health Secretaries and several shadow Culture Secretaries in my time, but I have to say that tonight, when I was called charming by the shadow Foreign Secretary, I nearly blushed. I thank her for the compliment, and I will assume that she could not possibly have meant the other less gracious things she said about me. I thank her for this one happy moment in my Dispatch Box career.

We have had a good debate today on the implications of the Brexit deal. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Unfortunately, I did not hear the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), but I heard that he made a particularly thoughtful speech about the dilemmas in everyone’s mind and the conflicts of loyalty—to party, to Government, to country and, particularly, to voters who voted to leave the EU. We should not pretend that this is an easy decision for anyone.

I commend hon. Members in all parts of the House who emphasised the obligation that collectively rests upon all of us to fulfil the mandate of the referendum and take Britain out of the EU. I cannot mention every Member who spoke this afternoon, but I do want to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), for Carlisle (John Stevenson), for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), all of whom spoke with passion about how those who voted to leave the EU deserved respect for their views rather than indignation. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley spoke with particular passion about leave voters who felt that no one was listening to them. He said that if Parliament decided not to listen to them, that would be wholly dangerous.

Those sentiments were expressed not just by Conservative Members but by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), who reminded us that their constituents voted by clear margins to leave the EU. There was common ground even with the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—I do not always say that—who said that we must honour and respect the referendum result. Let me emphasise that the fundamental aim of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration is to make good on the verdict of the referendum. That is why they have been painstakingly negotiated for the last two years.

We heard some passionate arguments for a second referendum from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), among others. I sat in the Cabinet with my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney, and I always listened carefully to her many excellent contributions. In my last role, I learned also to listen carefully to the excellent contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes.

However, on this rare occasion, I found myself agreeing more with comments such as those of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley, who said that if we held a second referendum, his constituents would ask why we did not then hold a third and a fourth. They would do that for a simple reason. If we did hold another referendum and the result were reversed—if 48% of the country voted to leave and 52% voted to remain—there would be 48% who had voted twice in a row to leave the EU, and they would be incredibly angry. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) was right to say that a second referendum would not settle the issue.

[Anna McMorrin]

What the Secretary of State is saying is not correct. It is not a question of rerunning the referendum that took place two years ago; it is a question of giving the decision back to the people, two years on, so that they can ask themselves, “Is this what we really want, now that the evidence is clear?”

[Mr Hunt]

I suggest to the hon. Lady that she should have conversations with the leave voters in her constituency, and ask them whether they agree with that view. I think that leave voters have a very simple message: they just want us to get on with it. We must ask ourselves whether it would truly settle the issue in their minds were we to go back and ask people the same question again, or a similar question.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Hunt]

I will give way once more, and then, perhaps, make some progress.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is the Secretary of State not neglecting the people who voted to remain in the European Union and who are not being listened to now? They are angry too.

[Mr Hunt]

I think it is a world first for me to praise the Liberal Democrats from the Dispatch Box, but they, at least, have been completely consistent from the start in saying that they want to reverse the result of the referendum. I am afraid that other Members have been hiding behind various devices, and saying that they do not want to reverse the result when they actually do. I think that, leave or remain, this is a moment when we have to remember that we are above all a democracy in this country, and it would be incredibly dangerous if we were not to listen to what people have asked us to do.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hunt]

I will give way one last time, and then I will make some progress.

[Sir Michael Fallon]

My right hon. Friend has already said that.

Is the point not that, either way, the question is unlikely to be resolved decisively in any referendum that might command, say, 60% or 65% of the electorate, which the 1975 referendum, which I think my right hon. Friend is too young to remember, actually did?

[Mr Hunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his flattering comment about my age. I agree with him. It would not resolve the issue, but I think there is a danger that if the result were reversed, it would make the very same people who said that the political class—the political elite—was not listening to them even more convinced that that was the case.

The shadow Foreign Secretary talked about foreign affairs and security, and I want to touch on that briefly. My starting point is very simple: however profound, significant and important Brexit might be, it does not change the simple fact that no European country has done more for the defence and security of Europe than Britain, and that partnership long predates our membership of the EU. In 1940 this country rejected any thought of abandoning Europe, even at the risk of invasion and national ruin, and joined forces with the United States and other allies to launch the liberation of the continent in 1944. Then Britain and the US, with our European friends, strove to build a new world order based on rules and institutions rather than power and militarism, and every British Government regardless of party has acted in the spirit of that tradition—a Labour Government setting up NATO, Margaret Thatcher standing shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Reagan against the Soviet threat. The EU, too, through its establishment of a rules-based order in continental Europe and the generous and far-sighted opening up to post-Soviet accession countries, has played a central role.

I particularly commend the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) for reminding us of the historical perspective, which is, in short, a partnership of shared values stretching across political and national divides, from left to right, across the Atlantic, including EU and non-EU members, which has kept the UK and Europe safe. The political declaration aims to enhance that partnership, and the task of putting that into practice will begin on the day the deal is agreed.

As European countries commit to that partnership going forward, so my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has shown by word and deed that Britain’s commitment to the security and defence of Europe remains unconditional and immoveable. Indeed, right now, in the middle of the Brexit debate, the British Army comprises the single biggest element of NATO’s enhanced forward presence, safeguarding Poland and the Baltic states. That is why the declaration allows the closest relationship in foreign and security policy that the EU has ever had with a third country. Part III makes it clear that “where and when” our interests converge, Britain and the EU will be able to “combine efforts” to the

“greatest effect, including in times of crisis”.

Here I can reassure the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), who worried about our country becoming isolated, that that is not going to happen. Where we agree with the EU, we can act together; where we disagree, we will be free to act independently or with others. But we will no longer be constrained by a lowest common denominator foreign policy.

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described earlier, Britain will be given unprecedented scope to co-operate with the EU to protect our citizens from terrorism and organised crime as we regain parliamentary control of our immigration policy. We had a number of important contributions on that point, including from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and I can reassure them that under the withdrawal agreement our law enforcement agencies will continue to use EU tools and databases throughout the transition period, including SIS II and ECRIS. Paragraph 87 of the declaration states that as the transition period concludes, the UK and the EU have agreed to continue to exchange information on wanted or missing persons and criminal records, and that our future relationship should include those capabilities.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I sense an intervention coming; why did I think that might happen?

[Yvette Cooper]

What will the timetable be for the negotiation of a security treaty and its full ratification, and will it be completed within the transition period?

[Mr Hunt]

Because negotiations involve two parties, I cannot say when they will conclude, but it is the clear intention of both sides that they should conclude before the end of the transition period at the end of 2020. In summary, the future security partnership envisaged in the declaration would enable British and EU law enforcement agencies to share essential data, including passenger name records, fingerprints, DNA and vehicle registrations.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the arrest warrants issued for the alleged Salisbury murderers, an issue of close interest to me as Foreign Secretary. I can reassure her that as part of the future security partnership we have agreed to swift and effective arrangements enabling the UK and member states to surrender suspected and convicted persons efficiently and expeditiously.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), spoke passionately about the contribution made by Poles and other EU nationals to their constituencies. I entirely share those sentiments, as do my constituents in South West Surrey. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear how this country will treat the millions of EU citizens who live among us with decency and generosity in all circumstances. I hope and believe that our neighbours will act in the same spirit towards Britons who reside in the EU.

[Drew Hendry]

Does the Foreign Secretary believe that it is treating people with fairness, dignity and respect to charge them for maintaining their status here? Does he honestly believe that that is the right kind of signal to send out to the people he says are so valued?

[Mr Hunt]

We make charges to cover administrative costs, just as EU countries make charges for the administrative costs that our citizens incur when in their countries. What is really significant when it comes to generosity is the fact that we have made this offer unconditionally. We made it before any reciprocal offer was made by EU countries in return. That is a sign of how much we value the extraordinarily important contribution that these people make to our national life.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), in a very dignified speech, raised the issue of Galileo. I regret that the EU has unwisely made it impossible for Britain to remain a full partner of the Galileo satellite communication system. Carl Bildt, the former Prime Minister of Sweden, has described the EU’s behaviour on this as

“strategic folly of the first order”.

So we will develop a plan for a sovereign system of our own, because when the EU rejects co-operation, the United Kingdom is perfectly big and confident enough to develop our own alternatives. But if this House rejects the declaration and the withdrawal agreement and we leave the EU without a deal, our security co-operation with our closest neighbours will be put at risk. The reason is that, in a no-deal situation, such co-operation would depend not on any agreement but on good will, and that could well be missing. At a time when threats are evolving and cross-border collaboration has never been more important, our law enforcement agencies would not have the guaranteed channels that they currently have for exchanging essential information with our EU neighbours.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that another option would be to extend article 50, and that it is incorrect to present the House with a false choice in which we would automatically fall out on 29 March?

[Mr Hunt]

I had a conversation with my hon. Friend earlier this evening about how lively things are in her constituency. I think that if any of us asked our own constituents whether the right solution to the dilemmas we face would be to extend the agony by postponing the article 50 due date, they would be absolutely horrified. They want to get this over with. They want to get it resolved.

I mentioned the risks of a no-deal situation to our security, which were recognised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). They all alluded to that issue.

In conclusion, when it comes to defence and security, irrespective of our membership of the EU, the lesson of history is clear. When Britain and Europe stand together against common foes, our combined strength deters our adversaries and keeps the peace. If we did not do that, our common security would be placed at risk in a way that would be wholly unnecessary. So let us grasp this opportunity for a new and different partnership, post Brexit, based on the essential truth that British and European security are indivisible and, whether inside or outside the legal structures of the EU, our common interests are best served by working together to protect the values we all cherish.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jeremy Quin.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow (Order, 4 December).

Health, Social Care and Security

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

I thank the Opposition for choosing to have this debate on security, health and social care. Like the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Health Secretary, I want to start by paying tribute to the amazing work of our emergency services in the recent terrorist atrocities. There are many stories, but two in particular sum up for me just how brilliant they were. The first was of an anaesthetist who picked up his daughter from the Manchester Arena when the bomb went off. He checked his daughter was safe, dropped her off at home and then went straight to work at Stepping Hill hospital. He worked through the night, and it was only in the morning that his colleagues realised he had actually been there when the bomb went off.

I also want to mention the paramedics who arrived on the scene at London Bridge. They arrived minutes after the incident. Gunfire was still happening and they thought they were being fired at, but they walked straight into that gunfire. When I met them, they said they were just doing their job, but I think that shows that there is no such thing as “just a job” in the NHS; it is a vocation. On behalf of the whole country as well as this House, I want to thank them for showing us the NHS at its best. I want to record the fact that it is not just in times of tragedy that our NHS is there for us; it is there seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

We have had a good and wide-ranging debate this afternoon. I congratulate, as the shadow Health Secretary did, the Members who made their maiden speeches; we heard some fantastic ones. I start with my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). It is great credit to him that his mother is a pharmacist and his father is an NHS doctor. It is marginally less credit to him that he became a lawyer, but only marginally. He spoke with great passion and fluency about the importance of education. It was an excellent and moving first contribution to this House.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Colin Clark), a notable Conservative gain in the election. He spoke with great eloquence about the attractions of his constituency, including castles, beaches, restaurants and a golf course owned by the President of the United States. As for his campaign to get the Scottish Government to do more to deal with NHS staff shortages in his area, it is unusual for me to be on this side of the argument, but I can wholeheartedly support his campaign.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) for his excellent speech. A teacher of medieval history, he taught us about the 9th century church in his constituency and the need to learn the lessons of the peasants’ revolt against excessive taxation. I can assure him that on the Conservative Benches we do not need to learn those lessons; we have reached enlightenment.

I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) for his beautiful panegyric to his stunning constituency. He spoke very powerfully against witch hunting in the military and very powerfully in favour of the Union; both positions will have strong support on the Government Benches.

I welcome to the Labour Benches the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams). It is excellent to have another doctor in the House. He is, I think, the first ever Member to invite all hon. Members to join him at his 6 o’clock boot camp. As the shadow Health Secretary said, I feel as Health Secretary that I should set an example and join him, but unfortunately I have an unavoidable diary clash; that is a phrase he will learn to use as a new MP, I am sure. His passion for dealing with health inequalities came through loud and clear, and did him great credit.

I also want to thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). She talked about the majesty of the three bridges across the Forth. For a couple of my teenage years, I grew up under one of them. She was absolutely right to want to reassure EU citizens working in the NHS of the vital importance of their role. I hope the Prime Minister’s comments this week will give them reassurance that we are seeking a deal that gives them the same rights to live and work here as UK citizens.

I apologise for not being able to mention all of the many other contributions, but there were some important themes that I want to touch on. A number of Members talked about the possibility of developing a more cross-party consensus on difficult issues around health and social care. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke powerfully on that point, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I would make this point. Governments of all colours always seek to get consensus on difficult policy issues, and this Government are no different. However, it takes two to tango, and we have had two elections in a row that the Labour Opposition have tried to turn into referendums on the NHS. If those on the Opposition Front Bench are willing to engage, then we on this side of the House are most certainly willing to do likewise.

[Yvette Cooper]

On an issue on which I hope there will be consensus across the House, the Secretary of State will, I hope, have heard the words of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who said that whether women from Northern Ireland can get an abortion in the English NHS is a matter for the English NHS. Will the Secretary of State agree to change the rules, so that Northern Ireland women do not have to pay in England for an abortion, if they need one?

[Mr Hunt]

I agree that all women, in all parts of the United Kingdom, should have the same rights to access healthcare. I note that a consultation on this matter is about to happen. The most important thing is that the voices of the women of Northern Ireland are listened to in that consultation.

We had powerful speeches on mental health, in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and the hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), but also from many others. Mental health is a very big priority for the Government, particularly children and young people’s mental health, because half of all mental health conditions become established before the age of 14. It is particularly important to have better links between the schools sector and the NHS if we are to crack this problem. We have a Green Paper coming up later in the year that will seek to address that.

We also had a number of important speeches on the workforce and morale, including from my hon. Friends the Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), a doctor and a nurse respectively, who spoke with great authority. We also heard from Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), for Halifax (Holly Lynch), for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and for Halton (Derek Twigg), who touched on issues around GP recruitment. On pay, all Members will recognise that whichever party is in power, we have to do the right thing for the economy. People will recognise that in the very difficult period that we have just had, it would not have been possible to increase the number of doctors by nearly 12,000 and the number of nurses in our wards by nearly 13,000 if we had not taken difficult decisions on pay. What I can say is that we will not make our decision on public sector pay until the pay review body has reported. We will listen to what it says, and to what people in this House have said, before making a final decision.

I want to mention what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) said about his battle against sepsis. Everyone in this House, on all sides, is totally delighted that he won that battle, but how typically selfless of him to use his speech to talk about the 44,000 people every year who do not win their battle against sepsis. We will look carefully at what he said about a national sepsis registry. I also thoroughly agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) said about leadership in the public sector and the NHS. I look forward to more discussions with him about that.

On security, the shadow Home Secretary basically tried to turn an argument about public safety into an argument about austerity. However, I would gently say that for a shadow Home Secretary to protest about austerity in policing when she herself wanted to cut MI5 and the Met’s special branch, and when her leader wanted to cut the armed forces, is patently absurd. What she never mentioned is why we got into austerity in the first place: a global financial crash, made infinitely worse by profligate spending and a failure to regulate the City of London by the last Labour Government.

The shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), spoke eloquently about the NHS.

[Ian Austin]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to make some progress. The shadow Health Secretary talked about underfunding of the NHS. He did not, of course, mention the new £43 million emergency floor at Leicester Royal Infirmary, which opened in April and is benefiting his constituents. There are indeed funding pressures in the NHS as we deal, like all countries, with the pressures of an ageing population, but they would be a whole lot worse if we had followed the advice of the Labour party in 2010 and cut the NHS budget; or followed the advice of the Labour party in Wales, which did cut the NHS budget; or followed the advice of the Labour party in 2015, when it promised £5.5 billion less than the Conservatives. The difference between this side of the House—

[Jonathan Ashworth]

rose—

[Mr Hunt]

I will just make my point. The difference between this side of the House and the other side is not the desire to fund the NHS, but the ability to fund it through a strong economy, and that is exactly what we did. By 2014, we had created 2 million more jobs and the fastest growth in the G7, and what was our first priority? The NHS. Its budget has gone up by £6 billion in real terms since 2014. That is a 7% rise, and it is £2.6 billion more than the Labour party promised in 2015.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

Our advice was to put an extra £7 billion into the NHS this year, but will the Secretary of State tell me whether he thinks it fair that the people of Northern Ireland will receive an extra £1 billion—which I do not begrudge—while there is not a penny piece of extra investment for the English NHS? Is that fair?

[Mr Hunt]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that our manifesto was very clear: it referred to an extra £8 billion for the NHS, funded by the strong economy that Labour can never deliver.

When the hon. Gentleman talked about problems in the NHS, and problems in care in the NHS, it sounded as if all those problems had started with the Conservatives. He did not mention the most challenging and difficult problem that his party left behind: the legacy of atrocious care at Mid Staffs, Morecambe Bay and many other trusts. Unlike the last Labour Government, we did not sweep those problems under the carpet. We did the opposite: we introduced the toughest inspection regime in the world. Thirty-five trusts went into special measures, and 20 exited from those special measures. Wrexham Park, George Eliot, Hinchingbrooke, Cambridge, Morecambe Bay, Tameside and East Lancashire went from special measures to good standards. The proportion of NHS patients who say that their care is safe has never been greater.

[Stella Creasy]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has just announced a consultation on access to abortion in English hospitals, but as far as anyone is aware, no such consultation exists. Can you inform us whether there will be a written statement on the consultation, given that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the issue and no information has been given, and whether we will be allowed to test the will of the House on the matter?

[Mr Speaker]

I have had no notification on that subject, but knowing the hon. Lady as I do, I feel sure that she will return to it before long.

[Mr Hunt]

This is the difference between the two parties. The Labour party wants to use the NHS as a political football. We want to make it better for patients, and that means difficult decisions to grow the economy so that we can fund the NHS, and difficult decisions to raise standards. The party of the NHS, however, is not the party that uses it to milk votes; it is the party that fights to make it better for patients. That is why it is the Conservative party that is making those difficult decisions. It is the Conservative party that is on the side of patients. It is the Conservative party that is seeing the highest standards of care for cancer, mental health conditions, strokes, heart attacks and nearly every major disease category that we have ever seen in the history of the NHS. It is the Conservative party, not the Labour party, that is the party of the NHS.





Question put, That the amendment be made.

Hillsborough

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

This has been a powerful debate that has shown Parliament at its best, but also caused us to look into the mirror and reflect on our own failings. I would like to start by adding my own condolences to the families of the victims of that terrible day 23 years ago. I have been privileged to meet some of the families, including Anne Williams, Margaret Aspinall and Trevor Hicks. They were among the most moving and heart-rending meetings I have ever had as a Minister. I would like to reiterate to them my unreserved apology for some of my early comments about the events of that terrible day, and thank them for their quiet dignity in the face of so much misunderstanding by those in authority, including me.

That so many people lost their loved ones that day—children, parents, brothers and sisters, friends and partners—is a national tragedy. That they themselves were blamed for the deaths, that people covered up the truth and that so much that could and should have been done to save people’s lives was not, is a matter of huge shame for our country. We cannot know whether our actions now will help bring closure to the bereaved families, but it is incumbent on all of us to do it right this time.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has outlined the facts as highlighted by the report of the Hillsborough independent panel in relation to the police. I should like to do the same as regards the response of the ambulance service on the day and the subsequent actions of pathologists and the coroner.

The panel found significant failings in the response and actions of the South Yorkshire Metropolitan ambulance service. Ambulance staff at the stadium were slow to respond and to realise that a major incident was unfolding, despite being close to where the crush was taking place. Poor communication between the emergency services led to delay, misunderstanding and, importantly, a failure fully to implement the major incident plan. The result was a lack of leadership and co-ordination by senior officers and that resources, including the emergency foot team with essential medical equipment, were not deployed. This clear failure continued for at least 45 minutes after fans were released from the pens. There was no systematic assessment of the condition of the victims, and there was a lack of basic equipment, much of which, again through poor communication, remained in ambulances parked outside the ground.

A number of doctors and nurses happened to be in the ground at the time as spectators. Their accounts, critical of the lack of leadership, co-ordination, triage and equipment, were vigorously refuted at the time by South Yorkshire metropolitan ambulance service. Sadly, they were an accurate portrayal of what happened that day. There is also evidence that a number of written statements were altered. In a number of cases, they deflected criticisms and emphasised the efficiency of the ambulance service response.

The Hillsborough independent panel also re-examined the evidence around the cause of death. In most cases, post mortem results stated that the cause of death was traumatic asphyxia, with the assumption made by the coroner that unconsciousness would have taken place within seconds and death within three to four minutes. As a result, it was repeatedly asserted by the coroner, by the High Court in the judicial review and by Lord Justice Stuart-Smith’s scrutiny that, by the time those who died had been removed from the pens, death would have been irreversible.

I regret to inform the House that the panel found clear evidence in at least 41 cases that that was not the case. The post mortem reports found that 28 people did not have traumatic asphyxia with obstruction of blood circulation and would have taken much longer to die. There was also separate evidence that in 31 cases the heart and lungs had continued to function after the crush, and, in 16 cases, for a prolonged period. However, these people would have remained vulnerable to a further incident brought on by something as simple as being placed on their back, which would further have obstructed their airway. It is not possible to say with certainty whether anyone could or would have survived under different circumstances, but it is highly likely that what happened to them after 3.15 pm played a significant part in whether they survived.

The Hillsborough independent report raised those and other clear failings by the NHS at the time—failings that might have contributed to the loss of as many as 41 lives. I have, in the past, made my own personal apology for my misunderstanding of the events at Hillsborough. Today, I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the NHS, to make a sincere apology to the families, friend and loved ones of the victims of the 96. I am deeply sorry for the part that the NHS played in their grief, both at the time and in any attempt to conceal those failings in the 23 years since.

The ambulance service in south Yorkshire and across the country is very different today from how it was in 1989. We have learned valuable lessons from major incidents such as Hillsborough, but also more recently from the 7/7 bombings, the floods in 2007 and the Cumbria shootings in 2010. In 1989, ambulance services were predominantly about first aid and transporting people to hospital. Only around 10% of ambulance crews were qualified paramedics able directly to intervene at the scene of an emergency. Today, the service is characterised by a highly skilled and qualified work force. Around 60% of staff are paramedics.

Although the events of that day happened almost a quarter of a century ago and although the ambulance service has changed significantly since then, we should not and will not assume that the failings of 1989 have been fully rectified in 2012. I am totally committed to making certain that any and all steps are taken to ensure that any failings brought to light by the panel’s work are dealt with promptly and satisfactorily.

The chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, has written to the Royal College of Pathologists, drawing its attention to the panel’s report and inviting it to reflect on what lessons might be learned by pathologists practising today. In addition, Sir David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS, has written to ambulance trusts, acute hospital trusts and strategic health authorities again asking them to consider what further lessons might be learned from the report that would improve NHS services.

I would like now to mention some of the extremely moving speeches that we have heard this evening. I apologise if I do not get round to mentioning all of them because of the time constraints, but let me say first that we have seen a debate this evening that has shown this House at its very best. I want to pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for his campaigning. It is true to say that without his decision, with the support of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), we would not be here today and justice would not have been done. He deserves huge credit for that.

We heard an extremely moving speech from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley), who talked about the appalling failing of West Midlands police and the agony that the family of Kevin Williams went through. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) talked about the fact that he was in the stadium on the day. The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) talked about his shock at the elimination of inconvenient witness statements by South Yorkshire police, describing them as opinion and not fact.

The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) talked about the kindness of the people of Sheffield to the people of Liverpool and about how it is important, if we are going to have a culture of transparency, that it needs to come right from the very top. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) talked about how she was born and bred in Hillsborough, living only a stone’s throw away, and paid an important tribute to the members of South Yorkshire police force who behaved professionally and honourably. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) talked about the huge workload faced by the IPCC, and highlighted the issue of ensuring that it has adequate resources. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) talked about the power of football to bring people together and about the importance that everyone should be accountable for their actions, no matter whether they are still serving or not.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) talked about her support for the shadow Home Secretary’s desire for the IPCC to have powers to compel police officers to give evidence—something that we have said we are happy to talk to the shadow Home Secretary about. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) talked about the need to change the law to stop cover-ups. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) talked about the need for The Sun and Kelvin MacKenzie to be accountable for their actions, and about the need for the investigation to be carried out quickly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) talked about his concern for the families and victims. The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) questioned whether all statements had been disclosed to the panel. If she has any details of any missing documents, I would ask her to let us know, so that we can ask officials to look into that. She also asked whether the Football Association was subject to investigation. I can confirm that the actions of the football authorities are within the scope of the review of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) spoke movingly as a football fan about the need to resolve this matter with decency and urgency. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), whose campaigning on this issue is second to none, talked about the question of when human nature should override the orders given by a senior officer. The hon. Member for St Helens North (Mr Watts) asked why the establishment and media did not expose the cover-up and, again, talked about the role of The Sun.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) talked, as many Members did, about the importance of speed and parliamentary oversight. I can assure her that Parliament will be kept fully informed of the progress of the investigations. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) talked about the response of constituents to the way in which Parliament has responded to this issue following the Prime Minister’s statement. I agree—and the Government agree—on the importance of ongoing support for families.

The hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) talked movingly about the achievements of campaigners for justice for the Hillsborough victims. The right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) talked about the conspiring that has happened and how that shakes many people’s confidence in the very foundations of the state. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said that, for all of us, it is impossible to understand what it is like to lose a child. She said that we must remember the law-abiding fans and the fact that the image of a hooligan was a stereotype that led to many of the problems that we are dealing with today.

Then we heard powerful contributions by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), although I am sorry that I do not have time to reference them all in detail.

I want to conclude by saying that, as the Prime Minister has said, the Hillsborough families have been the victims of a double injustice: first, through the events themselves, the failure of the state to protect their loved ones, and their interminable wait for the truth; and, secondly, through the injustice of the denigration of the deceased and the way in which everything that happened that day was portrayed as being somehow their own fault. The Liverpool fans were not the cause of the disaster, and it is clear, as the report states, that

“a swifter, more appropriate, better focused and properly equipped response had the potential to save more lives”.

Olympics (Security)

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Some arrangements have already been made in relation to the Metropolitan police—

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Thanks to the Culture Secretary.

[Mrs May]

I was about to come on to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) makes the point that all the Olympic venues are being delivered on time and within budget. I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, which built on work done by the previous Government—Labour was in government when the bid was won, and they did a lot of Olympics planning work. We should accept that both parties take responsibility for the Olympics and hope that everybody will enjoy a fantastic games.

Hillsborough Disaster

Jeremy Hunt Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Let me first say a big thank you to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I was at the 20th anniversary commemoration service at Anfield, and I know that that was a very emotional occasion for my right hon. Friend. I think that he felt the rawness tenfold—knowing how the families, Liverpool fans and others felt about an injustice that has continued for over 22 years—and I think that he did well to get through his speech and deliver his message on that day. I want to record my thanks for what he did, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). As I have said, it was an emotional occasion. There were 30,000 people in the stadium that day. I have been going to such commemoration services for many years, but that occasion demonstrated the depth of support for the families, and for the securing of the truth and justice that we all seek.

I was present at the Hillsborough disaster. I drove to the ground that day with three friends. As was recalled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), it was a beautiful sunny day, and we were looking forward to a good match—one of many good matches that we had seen as Liverpool supporters. One could never have imagined how the event would end. As we approached the stadium we sensed that something was wrong, and indeed the chaos had already started outside the Leppings Lane end. We witnessed mounting chaos around the turnstiles. When we eventually managed to pass through them, our tickets were not checked. There was no organisation and no policing. As I have said, it was complete chaos.

I watched the disaster. I was in the north stand, and my three friends were at the Leppings Lane end. I felt somewhat let down because I did not have a ticket for Leppings Lane. I would normally stand up in the Liverpool Kop, but for some reason I had ended up with a stand ticket, which meant sitting down, and I felt that I had lost out. Of course I did not know what was about to happen, and I did not know what had happened to my three friends in Leppings Lane until some time later.

As I have said, I watched the whole horror of the disaster unfold in front of me. It was obvious well before 3 pm that pens 3 and 4, the middle pens, were full, but on either side of them the stand was empty. I will not go into the details, because we have been through them back in 1998 and since, but it beggars belief that the police and those responsible could not see what was happening. It had to be seen to be believed. Then, of course, we saw the disaster unfold.

The horror of that day will always live with me, but I did not lose my life, and nor did anyone personally known to me. The families, however, are in a completely different position. I recognise the dignified and determined way in which they have pursued their fight for justice, in spite of the terrible slur perpetrated by the police, with the help of certain sections of the press, in blaming Liverpool supporters for the disaster. Those families have my deepest respect. It is their love for their loved ones, and their burning desire to put a wrong right, that have kept them going for 22 years. Imagine 22 years of fighting this! It is quite unbelievable—but they still have the energy and drive to see this through. One person could not be here tonight. He said that he was tired and would not be here: he wanted to save his energy, so that he could see the conclusion of the campaign and see that justice was done.

Imagine finding out that your loved one had died in that terrible disaster, or been badly injured, and reading or hearing shortly afterwards that that person and his fellow supporters were being blamed for it. It is almost unimaginable that, notwithstanding the grief and trauma that those families were going through, those reports should unfold in the next few days. As has been said, several newspapers were involved, but I think that a headline in The Sun caused the most distress and upset. It is difficult for those who were not personally affected to appreciate the impact of that headline. The fact that police officers were involved as well was disgraceful. The distress caused by all that cannot be overstated.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh said, the 3.15 pm cut-off point is crucial, because nothing that happened after that time was taken into consideration. We know that people were alive then, and, as my right hon. Friend made clear, that is an issue for some of the families. It was an unbelievable decision. Dozens of ambulances were not allowed into the stadium, and it was also unbelievable that that was allowed to happen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton pointed out, it was Liverpool supporters who led the rescue mission, if I can call it that, carrying bodies and injured people away from Leppings Lane outside the ground.

I welcomed the Home Secretary’s statement about the independent panel. There was some discussion about the establishment of the panel, and there was a good deal of mistrust among the families because of all that had happened previously, but they went along with the process and became involved in detailed negotiations with the Government. I was asked by Liverpool and Merseyside Members of Parliament to represent them in those negotiations, which required considerable hard work. The panel’s primary aim is to ensure the recording and orderly release of the documents, which—this is crucial—must be shown to the families first. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh knows, we managed to ensure that the production of a report was included in the agreement. That report will be crucial to the process of putting the truth in the public domain, and enhancing our understanding of the events and information relating to the disaster.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s unequivocal commitment to full disclosure, but will the Minister confirm that it will include the advice on which the Director of Public Prosecutions based his decision not to prosecute any senior police officers? Will it also include the reasons for moving an experienced match commander, Chief Superintendent Mole, a few weeks before the semi-final and replacing him with Chief Superintendent David Duckenfield, who was relatively inexperienced in the policing of football matches?

I think it important for Ministers, and the Government generally, to tread carefully, because there have been some problems. I know that what the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport said about hooliganism was taken out of context, but the fact remains that it caused a great deal of distress to the families. Moreover, last week’s debacle involving the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) almost scuppered tonight’s debate. We need careful planning and thinking about how this matter should be dealt with from now on.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

As the hon. Gentleman has referred to comments that I made, may I take this opportunity to apologise to the House—as I have to the families—for those comments? What I said was sloppily worded, it caused great offence, and I hugely regret it. The families were incredibly generous in accepting the apology that I made to them.

[Derek Twigg]

I know that the Secretary of State did not mean his remarks in the sense in which they were portrayed. I gave that example, along with last week’s, to emphasise that all this must be dealt with sensitively. The families have been through so much, and sometimes things have been wrongly said, have not been done or have been glibly avoided.

I want to put on record my thanks to the people of Sheffield. What lives with me is the memory of queues of supporters outside residents’ houses—and I mean queues: not two or three people, but 10, 20 or 30—who were allowed to use those residents’ telephones to let their families know that they were OK, and were given cups of tea. That was tremendous. The contribution and support of the people of Sheffield should be on record, and is one of the images that live with me to this day as I recall walking back from the ground. We want justice for the 96, and we want to make sure that all this information is released and that the families can see it first; that is crucial. We also want the Government to consider very carefully the report that will be produced, and to respond in a positive way that ensures that the families know both that everything possible has been done to get the information out and that their fight has not been in vain.