RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing the debate with the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and on his excellent opening speech. He set a high bar, and his speech has been consistently matched by speaker after speaker in this debate.

I wish to raise the case of my constituent Ms Julia Davey, who ran two successful businesses, Angelic Interiors Ltd and Angel Group Ltd. I wish to place on the record my thanks to her barrister, Mr Simon Reevell, who represented Dewsbury in this House from 2010 to 2015, for his extensive briefing and assistance. In short, as at 30 April 2008, Angelic Interiors had fixed assets of over £30 million, with shareholder funds of £6 million; it was placed into administration in July 2016. At the same time, Angel Group had fixed assets of over £100 million, with shareholder funds of over £60 million; four years later it, too, would be placed into administration and then liquidated in 2015. Ms Davey has, by her calculations, personally lost over £6 million.

From the House of Commons Library briefing, it is clear that the focus of the Global Restructuring Group of the Royal Bank of Scotland was in many cases to liquidate companies, rather than to support them. The main charge is that it promoted the realisation of assets over other outcomes and that there was no attempt to rescue them.

Mr Reevell’s brief says that the Tomlinson report makes it clear that RBS used its Global Restructuring Group artificially to distress the businesses of a significant number of its customers. Accounts were moved to GRG and customers were then charged exorbitant fees and/or forced to relinquish control of their businesses. The method used within Lloyds Baking Group’s London and south east impaired assets department was to compel customers to accept the involvement of what they were given to understand was a turnaround company. Very high fees were levied for this service and the “turnaround” company gradually gained control of the business and misappropriated its income before appropriating and/or disposing of its assets.

Lloyds’ business support unit based in the City used a similar method in respect of Ms Davey, and her business. In 2009, her account was transferred from Leeds to the BSU without her knowledge. In September 2011, Ms Davey was told that she must retain the services of a third-party turnaround company, Baronsmead Consultancy. She was obliged to pay the fees charged by that firm, which were in excess of £644,000 for some 10 months’ work. The total taken from Ms Davey in costs and fees during the period that her business was in the BSU was in excess of £6 million. She believed that the turnaround company was working for her and was, in conjunction with the bank, aiming to return her business to mainstream banking. She would still believe that to have been the aim, but for information provided to her by a whistleblower inside the turnaround company, who was appalled that while the so-called turnaround company was purporting to assist Ms Davey, it was actually colluding with the bank to put the business into administration. At a time when the BSU had already decided to close down Ms Davey’s business, it was taking millions of pounds from her on the pretence that the business was to be turned around. This was not only deceitful, but wrong, and I would have thought criminal.

Part of the motion says that this House

“believes that this indicates a systemic failure to effectively protect businesses, which has resulted in financial scandals costing tens of billions of pounds”.

The losses include those of my constituent Ms Davey. She is still waiting for justice, and I look forward to the Minister telling me how she will secure it.

Mortgages: Eligibility

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone; it is a pleasure to serve under you, as ever. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) on securing this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Those I have spoken to in the housing sector welcome his support, and the petitioners’ suggestion of including rental history in the criteria for securing a mortgage is clear common sense. They will be pleased to hear the Front-Bench speakers, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, express their views and hopefully their support for the petition.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam commented anecdotally that one of the worst-feared phrases is:

“I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”

When I was in the Government Whips Office from 2001 to 2004, it was even more welcome when I said to colleagues, “I’m from the Whips Office, and I’m here to help.” However, that is a different issue entirely.

I will speak briefly about a less obvious anomaly involved in mortgage eligibility and problems: the policy of doubling ground rents that many developers impose on leaseholders. Many thousands of people then have difficulty selling their property, because mortgage lenders draw red lines around it, locking it in so that they cannot move along the housing ladder.

There have been a number of announcements recently from the Department for Communities and Local Government. I recognise that that is not the Economic Secretary’s Department, but I am sure that DCLG checks with him before making any announcements, because if the Treasury does not green-light something, it does not get past the starting block. I am keen to hear his comments, as I will explain later, on DCLG’s announcements. They have included the housing White Paper, the leasehold review and the eight-week consultation, the call for evidence last week and statements on Grenfell. Over the weekend, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government also announced policies on house building, particularly in the social housing and rented housing sectors.

Ground rents used to be of a peppercorn nature—a token element of house buying. Before the 2008 crash, ground rents rose roughly with the RPI, if at all. After the crash, developers introduced the policy for ground rents to double every 10 years, which effectively meant an 8% to 10% annual increase on ground rents and real problems for sellers and buyers.

Some developers—the good ones—did not go down that road. In the past year, Taylor Wimpey has announced that it will end the doubling of ground rents and return to RPI. It has set up a £130 million fund to put right the unfairness that was introduced into the system and fix the problem. It has a way to go, but at least it has identified and accepted that the policy is anomalous and is looking to repair the unfairness. Some developers, such as Countryside, were still selling flats on that basis in London as recently as this spring.

Consequently, mortgage lenders are drawing red lines against such properties because they are not a good risk. They refuse to issue mortgages against them, which strands leaseholders. Leaseholders cannot move up the housing ladder even if they are getting older and have greater income or if their family is growing and they want to move to a bigger property. The Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which advises the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform, estimates that more than 100,000 properties are in that category and thought to be unsellable; Nationwide, one of the biggest lenders in the country, is on record as agreeing to that estimate. One of my parliamentary team has such a property, a flat in south London. In the last 25 years of his lease, the ground rent on his flat will be £180,000 a year. That is a long way in the future, admittedly, but it is an indication of the eye-watering figures that make lenders really scared to disclose the eventual costs to prospective buyers.

It is clear that the Government recognise that there are real problems at this end of the housing sector. Their consultation on leasehold reform was specifically about ground rents doubling and homes for sale on a leasehold basis. They have said that they will move against both, but they will take evidence in the meantime. A number of welcome initiatives have been announced to address many of the anomalies, including yesterday’s announcement by the Secretary of State on homes in the social rented sector.

The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), my co-chair on the APPG, has continually raised many of the outstanding problems of leasehold for a number of years. It is encouraging that the Government are moving on a number of those. Leasehold reform is long overdue. The Conservative Government tried to fix leasehold in 1993, and the Labour Government tried to fix it with the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. Neither was successful. It is more than time for movement now. Although the Minister is not directly involved in DCLG’s programme, I would welcome an indication of whether mortgage eligibility is on the Treasury’s radar and whether the Treasury, either separately or in partnership with DCLG, plans to deal with the problem and support DCLG’s proposed solutions.

The ambition of all parties is to support home ownership, but because of these anomalies, that is further away for many people than ever. I look forward to hearing Front-Benchers’ responses to points raised in the debate. From my point of view, leasehold reform is part of mortgage eligibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Stephen Barclay)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank all those who signed the petition—more than 140,000 people did so—and Members from across the House for this good-natured and constructive debate. The petition shows the importance of debating these issues, which clearly resonate with many people. It is right that the House should consider them.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for his very helpful suggestion of a market-based solution for fintech, and I am happy to discuss that with him further. I also had a very constructive meeting with Lord Bird, who has done a lot of important work in this area, and came forward with important suggestions. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) also demonstrated a degree of cross-party consensus in terms of how we move forward on these issues.

To address directly the issue that the petition refers to—the extent to which paying rent should be evidence of affordability of a mortgage—it is important to note that affordability assessments are not just based on one factor. That is why mortgage affordability assessments include a requirement to assess possible changes to income. It is responsible for lenders to have a long-term perspective when making assessments.

Lenders can currently include payments of rent as a factor, but it is right to highlight that the Financial Conduct Authority independently makes those affordability assessments, or sets the terms relating to affordability for firms. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) drew on his professional experience and expertly explained that a wider suite of issues affects affordability—it is not just one’s past ability to pay rent.

Let me address the issues that hon. Members raised during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam called for reform of stamp duty. He will be aware that we are very close to a Budget, so I will take that as a Budget submission; I am sure that was the spirit in which he offered it to the House. It is obviously important that we balance people’s right to buy a second home or to buy to let against the impact that that has on other people’s ability to get on to the property ladder. I think that was the point that he was making. He also mentioned supporting the Rental Exchange scheme, which has already lifted 4.2 million social housing tenants into better credit. I encourage housing associations to play a more active role in raising awareness of important schemes such as that.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) raised, with great authority, the issue of ground rents. The Department for Communities and Local Government has published a consultation, as I am sure he knows, on that important subject. I assure him that the Treasury will take an active interest in the course of those discussions, but he can probably get a flavour of the Government’s position from the comments of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who said that too many homebuyers are being exploited. That goes to the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

As a result of the Government’s Help to Buy scheme, a lot of Government money—taxpayer’s money—has gone into the pockets of developers, who are taking advantage of the good Government policies that encourage first-time buyers. They are taking that as clear profit. I know that the Government are very interested in that, so I look forward to seeing what they do in the Budget.

[Stephen Barclay]

I am happy to alert the Housing Minister to the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but more than half the homes triggered by the policy are new, so Help to Buy has helped with the supply issue. I will raise that point with the relevant policy Minister.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) asked why the Government are not solving the problem of including rental payments within credit scores through the standing order system. I encourage any stakeholders with views about how best to encourage rental payments within credit scores to write to me about that. Perhaps my right hon. Friend and I can have a further discussion about that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk said that credit scores are a good predictor of credit risk, and I agree. That is why capturing a history of payment on time in people’s credit scores will help lenders make better decisions. My hon. Friend’s point is very pertinent. He also mentioned the ability of self-employed people to get a mortgage. Mortgage regulation means that the self-certifying mortgages seen before the financial crisis are no longer available, and I think he and I would agree that that is a good thing. However, some lenders will accept relatively short payment histories—12 to 18-month periods—as evidence of income, which suggests constructive engagement on that point.

My hon. Friend also mentioned lending into retirement. There is no reason why older customers could not obtain a mortgage if they could demonstrate their ability to repay. The FCA continues to consider how the financial services sector can better work with older people through its ageing population strategy, which was published in September.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) raised the issue of the cost of living: people paying rent cannot save for a mortgage. The Government have clearly taken some measures in this space, such as the crackdown on payday loans, which was widely welcomed across the House. The FCA is reviewing the high cost of credit and the car finance markets, as well as issues such as persistent debt in the credit card market. There will be further updates in 2018.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made an intervention about not encouraging debt. That emphasises the importance of the affordability assessments for mortgages being based on a holistic view of an individual’s finances, which in a way goes to the heart of the point that drove the petition—one cannot look at rental payments; one needs to take a holistic view in order to address the point that she pertinently intervened on.

The shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), raised the issue of housing supply. We very much recognise the imperative of housing supply. That is why the Government launched our housing White Paper in February, which proposed an ambitious package of long-term reform: releasing more land for homes where people want to live; building the homes we need faster; getting more people building, and supporting those who need help to buy. A suite of measures in the White Paper already speaks to many of the issues to which he referred.

Those leasing their home face the challenge of saving for a deposit while paying rent. That was the tenor of much of what was raised by colleagues across the House, and the Government very much recognise that through policies with which Members will be familiar: the Help to Buy scheme, which has helped with in excess of 320,000 housing transactions, more than 270,000 of which were for first-time buyers; and the help to buy ISA and the lifetime ISA, which both top up savings for a deposit to buy a first home.

Helping individuals to save for a deposit, however, will not address the problem on its own. That is why the Government intervened through the Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme, to ensure that the mortgage market works for people who rely on high loan-to-value mortgages. The Government also committed an extra £10 billion to the Help to Buy equity loan scheme.

Fundamentally, however, we also recognise the need to build more homes. Since 2010 significant progress has been made, with almost 900,000 homes built, including 300,000 affordable ones. The White Paper sought to address that and to accelerate the pace at which homes, including affordable homes, are built.

Turning to the specifics of the petition, the Government agree that a history of paying rent on time is a factor that lenders can consider when assessing creditworthiness, but it is a factor alongside others—not the sole factor to take on board. It is important to stress that mortgage regulations do not prevent lenders from taking into account rent payment as one of the criteria on which to assess affordability.

I therefore want to outline some of the opportunities that exist for connecting housing associations and others with lenders—my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam focused on that in his remarks—and how we encourage them all to work to build the profile of those who are renting and seeking to build their mortgage history. The diverse nature of the mortgage market means that prospective borrowers should shop around to take advantage of the variety of options that are available. It is also important to highlight the reforms that took place to prevent the poor lending practices seen before the crisis. Again pertinently, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk highlighted that in his remarks—it is important for us to take on board the lessons of the financial crash of some time ago.

Today, to address such concerns, the banks are required to conduct a comprehensive examination of an individual’s expenditure and income, and an interest rate stress test of that individual’s ability to make repayments. I hope that is one of the measures that will satisfy the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend. Overall, the changes are designed to ensure that the problems of the past are not repeated, but that means that the bar for getting a mortgage can be higher.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West mentioned opportunities for making better use of rental data in creditworthiness assessments. Options are available that allow renters to ensure that their rental history is captured in the information that credit reference agencies provide to lenders. That has the potential to improve the chances of someone getting a mortgage. He correctly cited the example of Experian and the potential for housing associations and credit reference agencies to work together to build more examples than the existing Experian one.

Part of the problem is that awareness of such schemes is low. The Government would like take-up to be increased and more ways to develop such models. I am happy to discuss the issue with my right hon. Friend. It is important to do things in a way that works with and builds on existing systems and processes, to avoid increasing costs for business and making it more expensive or difficult for people to access mortgages.

In the social housing sector, I want landlords to play a more active role in increasing awareness and take-up of the existing options. In the private rented sector, as well as the social housing sector, technology and innovation should be pivotal. The open banking changes, which will come into force in January 2018, will help to open up access to our data in a secure way, leading to all manner of innovations that will make it easier to build the creditworthiness models that have been discussed.

To conclude, although it is encouraging to see the number of mortgages granted to first-time buyers, now at the highest levels since the financial crisis, it is clear that many people still struggle to make the first step on to the housing ladder. Lenders and credit reference agencies being able to access data relating to a prospective borrower’s history of paying rent will benefit both the borrower and the lender. There are already private sector solutions, some of which we have heard about in the debate. I am keen to look for ways to raise awareness of those, and to look at how we use open banking to open up further possibilities in future. We have had a very constructive debate and I look forward to having further discussions with Members in the coming weeks.

Summer Adjournment

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who chairs the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group, of which I am the secretary. I am pleased that he managed to mention us in his contribution. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) to her place on the Opposition Front Bench; it is good to see her there this afternoon. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate, and I am confident that, like the hon. Member for Southend West, I will be able to finish within the seven-minute limit prescribed by Madam Deputy Speaker earlier. I want to discuss four issues: the Island Health Trust scandal in my constituency; leasehold reform; fire service duties, including approved document B; and the accountability of housing associations and registered social landlords.

Island Health Trust is the landlord for a health centre in my constituency. The trust’s main sources of income are the rent paid by the NHS and service charges paid by the doctors. From that, the Island Health Trust has accumulated a surplus of some £1.3 million. Despite those reserves, the landlord is charging the practice an unaffordable service charge, leading it to vacate the first floor of the health centre and a loss of services. The trust was originally managed by local trustees, and any surplus was used to fund local health initiatives through a modest grants programme. That changed on 1 April 2016 when the chair, Suzanne Goodband, appointed a new board of people with no local connection. Serious allegations have been made relating to the governance and business management of the trust, including trustees’ personal financial advantage. In 2015-16, the chair was paid £179,176 for consultancy services in a charitable trust with a turnover of just £270,000. Many believe that the health centre, the land upon which it stands and the £1.3 million reserves are public assets, that the trust should be run by local trustees, and that the £1.3 million should be invested to support patients and health services for local people. I have written to Health Ministers and to the Charity Commission asking for urgent meetings to discuss intervention to prevent asset stripping and personal profit by individuals who seem to be more interested in their own wellbeing than that of the NHS and local patients.

The Government have been sending some positive signals on leasehold reform. The housing White Paper and the Conservative party manifesto both refer to greater fairness and transparency for leaseholders. In reaction, several housing developers have voluntarily addressed the rip-off known as the doubling of ground rents and, to their credit, have changed their policies, but regulation is still urgently needed in this area. Other areas that need attention include a fairer land valuation tribunal system, rights for leaseholders against exorbitant service charges, events fees, refurbishment costs and so on, protection for pensioners in retirement homes, and protection against unfair forfeiture proceedings for vulnerable leaseholders. Those and many other matters rightly deserve Government action and the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and which now has more than 90 members, will welcome some progress. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s written statement this morning on “Machinery of Government Changes” included moving commonhold law from Ministry of Justice to the Department for Communities and Local Government, which seems a sensible step.

I commend the hon. Member for Worthing West on EDM 207 regarding commonhold reform, and I encourage hon. and right hon. Members from across the House to support it. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who is the new vice-chair of the APPG. He has submitted a number of searching parliamentary questions on the topic, and his keen interest, along with that of so many other colleagues, is welcome.

Questions have arisen about the accountability of housing associations and registered social landlords. Accountability and transparency in this growing sector are overdue for examination. The Government’s drive towards mergers and takeovers of smaller housing associations is taking social landlords further from their tenants and residents. While there are some good example of RSLs, especially in my constituency, others are not so good, and I hope to secure a debate with other colleagues after the recess to discuss that with Ministers. Perhaps the Backbench Business Committee will be interested in supporting it. As an example of unwelcome new initiatives, I received an email this morning from a constituent saying that one RSL is now offering loans to residents at 99.9% APR. I am unsure whether that is an appropriate thing for RSLs to do and will explore the matter further outside the Chamber, but I would have hoped that social landlords would be more interested in promoting the credit union movement and helping to set up more local credit unions than becoming loan agents.

The review of the building regulations fire guidance contained in approved document B is well overdue, and the hon. Member for Southend West has been campaigning on that with the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group for some time. I will not bore the House with the history of these matters, which is well documented, but ministerial statements from 2011 promised that a review would be complete by 2017. The Lakanal coroner recommended that that happen, and there have also been more recent recommendations. The review will be required whatever the findings of the public inquiry, so the sooner it can be started, the better.

Finally, I repeat my view that the fire service should be tasked with a statutory duty to deal with floods. They play a key role in every flood that happens, and they should not only have their work recognised, but get resources from the Government to do the job properly.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, other colleagues, the staff of the House and those who look after us a very decent break over the recess. We all know that it is not a holiday, but we are entitled to a break.

Easter Adjournment

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.

I speak today as the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and on that note, I thank my esteemed colleague the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who so eloquently filled this spot on my behalf on a couple of occasions.

We have heard time and time again that we must spend within our means and that cutting public expenditure is necessary to bring down the deficit. I am not just the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee; I am also the Member of Parliament for Gateshead, and I am afraid to say that Gateshead has not been doing well out of the Government’s programme of public expenditure cuts. We are told that slashing public services and increasing the complexity of our social security system are necessary to pave the way for countrywide prosperity in years to come, but I want to offer some home truths and facts and figures from my constituency.

My local authority, Gateshead, will have a £92 million funding gap by 2021. Real and damaging further cuts will have to be made, and I have no doubt that my already suffering constituents will face more misery. Our unemployment rate is twice that of the national average, the average weekly pay for a constituent is £20 less than the regional average in the north-east and £70 less than the UK average, and 26.8% of our children are living in poverty. That is just the tip of the iceberg in Gateshead. Significant numbers of my constituents are underemployed in part-time work, on zero-hours contracts, or juggling multiple part-time jobs to make ends meet. Many families in my constituency live in poverty, but many are living just above the bread line and also struggling. They are not “just about managing”; many of my constituents are really struggling. I appreciate that I have so far painted a bleak picture of my constituency, but it would be greatly remiss of me not to do so, because I am constantly aware from my casework workload that that is a fact of life for so many people.

There are, of course, some wonderful organisations and people, and a wide array of different cultures, in Gateshead. Just last week, on our annual single day of unbroken sunshine, I had the pleasure of walking from the heart of Gateshead—I live in the neighbourhood of Bensham—down towards the Gateshead quays. I walked through the Sage Gateshead music centre and on to the quayside by the Baltic centre for contemporary art. I could have been forgiven for thinking that I was in a tourist trap in any number of destinations across the world.

Gateshead is a great place to live and work. For those with a well-paid job, the quality of life can be very good. We are close to the countryside and to the coast, and we have the nightlife in the Newcastle-Gateshead conurbation. It could be argued that, for those in work, we probably have some of the best quality of life anywhere in the country.

Gateshead remains a hive of multiculturalism, too. Only three weeks ago the orthodox Haredi Jewish community where I live celebrated Purim, which is an event in itself. The youngsters from the community really go to town, as it were, and are encouraged to do so. It is a fantastic event, and I live in the heart of that community. Purim is an event enjoyed not only by those who participate but by those in the community who appreciate the benefits of that diversity.

Earlier this month, along with students from the National Citizen Service, I pressed the button to tilt the Gateshead millennium bridge to celebrate the fantastic opportunities that the NCS offers to young people in Gateshead and across the north-east.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Is that the bridge that goes from Gateshead to Newcastle? It is the Gateshead millennium bridge, is that right?

[Ian Mearns]

It is indeed, and I will come on to that in a moment.

The NCS in my constituency is already oversubscribed for the summer placements on this year’s programme, and the young people who have been involved are a credit to my constituency.

The Gateshead millennium bridge is a magnificent feat of engineering, and it truly is an iconic landmark. On the Newcastle side of the bridge is a glass structure upon which the words “Gateshead millennium bridge” are emblazoned. On the Newcastle side of the river is a little piece of Gateshead in a foreign land that will be for ever Gateshead. A bridge that has, by its very nature, managed to secure a foothold for Gateshead on the Newcastle side of the river is an impressive achievement. Some Members will appreciate the importance of that to those of us from the Gateshead side.

I also continue to chair the governing body of one of my local primary schools, Kelvin Grove. The school, in the heart of Bensham, Gateshead, was rated good by Ofsted only a couple of months ago. Gateshead has an array of cultures within its population, and a significant proportion of students have English as a second language. At the last count, a total of 27 different languages were spoken by pupils at that school, and I am sure Members will agree that, although the mix of languages poses difficulties and complexities for the learning environment, there is no doubt that such diversity also has a significant positive effect on the education of all our young people in that neighbourhood. It is a great place to live in many respects.

There are further funding cuts to education, persistent problems in the NHS across the country, which we heard about over the winter, and the localisation of business rates. That localisation will have a negative impact on regions such as the north-east of England, where the 12 local authorities will lose some £300 million whereas Westminster, if we believe the figures published last year, will on its own gain more than £400 million, so we can see how it will have a different impact in different parts of the country. With all that happening, my constituents have little hope of benefiting from some of the measures of prosperity that we are told other parts of the country are currently enjoying or will enjoy. The Prime Minister pledges to have a country that “works for everyone” but, sadly, our definition of “everyone” varies somewhat, because the impacts of what is going on are very different in different places.

I have highlighted and will continue to highlight some of these injustices in this House and to anyone else who can understand what I am saying, but now I wish to take the opportunity to highlight some of the great things happening in Gateshead, despite some elements of Government policy that are having a detrimental impact on us. With colleagues from the Select Committee on Education, I had the pleasure of visiting Gateshead College in my constituency a couple of weeks ago. Despite significant cuts to funding for further education, Judith Doyle, the principal, and her team have ensured that Gateshead College remains one of the best further education colleges in the country, and only last year it was rated as “outstanding” by Ofsted. It is imperative in communities like Gateshead that we have institutions that have the ability to train our future workforce, in an environment that gives our young people the best opportunity to succeed going forward into their working life. Gateshead College, with its rich and diverse offer, is a fine example of this, and I am proud to have it in my constituency and to represent it.

Turning back to local government for a moment, significant cuts to the revenue support grant have forced local authorities to come up with ever more creative ways to plug the holes in their budgets and help grow the local economy. I was delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—visit Gateshead earlier this month to open the new £18 million Gateshead district energy centre, which uses cutting-edge technology to recycle heat from the energy generation cycle, using it to heat homes and businesses and water throughout the centre of Gateshead. It is hoped that the scheme will provide local homes and businesses with affordable energy, as well as making Gateshead an attractive place for new businesses to invest, taking advantage of the lower energy costs. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in congratulating Gateshead Council on taking the bold step to self-fund the entire project, for the benefit of local residents, businesses and employers.

In Gateshead, my constituents are very fortunate, as we have a fantastic hospital trust, operating out of the Queen Elizabeth hospital, which provides excellent service and care for all of its patients. I wish to place on record my thanks to not only the staff at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, but all staff in the NHS across Gateshead and the north-east for their unreserved commitment and dedication to ensuring that every person of every background is afforded the care that they very much deserve. Colleagues will be aware that I, too, have had to use the services of the NHS in my constituency, and on a personal note I would like to place on the record my thanks to my GP, Dr Ruth Bonnington, and my physiotherapist, Shane Ryan, for greatly accelerating my recovery from the slipped disc I suffered some weeks ago. Without their care and attention, I would not be here to make this contribution today.

Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the outstanding work that the voluntary sector does on a daily basis to help my constituents who often have nowhere else to turn. Whether it be in dealing with benefit sanctions, homelessness or illness, organisations such as the Gateshead citizens advice bureau, Barnardo’s, the Trussell Trust, the Gateshead food bank, and many more organisations and individuals across Gateshead, put their lives on hold to ensure that those most vulnerable in our communities receive the help and support they most desperately need. They are the real unsung heroes in our communities, and I would like to thank them for everything they do.

The north-east has a proud track record of donating to charity, despite the relatively low incomes people live on there. Our record on donating to things such as red nose day or Children in Need shows that we often exceed the national body’s expectations. Despite low incomes and indeed poverty, we have very successful food bank collections. The points are often overflowing with food, which has often been donated by families who are struggling themselves. Sadly, despite the generosity of my constituents and others across the north-east, organisations providing often vital support to those most in need continue to find themselves short of resources. So as much as my constituents already give, I ask them from the Floor of the House of Commons to carry on and give more—it is needed.

As I open the debate, I look forward to the speeches of hon. Members from both sides of the House. Before I finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, the staff of the House and all hon. Members a very happy Easter?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I am grateful to him and the mover of the motion, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, for the work that they do in facilitating colleagues to raise important matters in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. They do a very difficult job. Having been to the Committee only this week to bid for time, I know that its members have pressures to balance. I am sure that they will make the right decision, but I am happy to wait to hear their conclusions in due course.

The title of the debate on the Order Paper is “Matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment”. Such debates are an opportunity for colleagues to present their shopping lists to the Government and the House, and I hope to be brief in presenting mine. I shall begin with a few thanks. As co-chair of the all-party group on maritime and ports, may I express my appreciation to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and congratulate him on commissioning Lord Mountevans to chair the maritime growth study? The growth strategy produced by the study led to Maritime UK, which is chaired by David Dingle and is trying to showcase British shipping and ports. That positive initiative is very important post-Brexit, and I wish it well.

I also wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his negotiations with the Treasury for an extra £15 million for support for maritime training—SMarT—for ratings and officer cadets on board merchant navy vessels. The SMarT money was introduced by the Labour Government in their 1997-to-2001 term. It produced 50% of funding for maritime training, but that is now down to a third. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing strongly with the Treasury, and I wish him success. The amount is only £15 million, which would double the £15 million that is already in the kitty, so he is not asking for a great deal. He is also working strongly on the contribution of shipping to air quality, and we are grateful for his efforts on that.

During my Adjournment debate last Friday on cochlear implants, I did not get the opportunity to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who explained that it was for not the Department of Health but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to decide who gets cochlear implants. Some 600,000 people out there could benefit from them. The Minister’s comments were positive and supportive, and I was grateful for the way in which he gave the Government’s response to the debate. NICE will come forward with the conclusions to its review this summer, so I hope that it will have listened to what he and I said.

The Department for Communities and Local Government has produced a White Paper on housing, and the Minister for Housing and Planning is in charge of taking it forward. The Governments of 1986, 1993 and 2002 all tried to reform leasehold provisions, but were unsuccessful, and now this Government are trying again. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and I co-chair the all-party group on leasehold reform, and I hope that the Government will be able to bring forward proposals on that in due course. The Housing Minister might also want to examine the role and accountability of housing associations, which is probably worth doing, given how important they now are within the housing market. They do great work, but when they do get things wrong, it is hard to rectify those problems.

I want to express gratitude to International Development Ministers for facilitating meetings between their officials and the international aid charity Fire Aid, which I chair. It is a small non-governmental organisation that is, on behalf of UK plc, delivering the millennium sustainable development goals put forward by the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. It works to reduce the one and a quarter million people dying on the world’s roads every year and the 20 million who are seriously injured. DFID deals in billions of pounds. We are a small NGO, and £20,000 or £50,000 is life or death to us, but this does not feature on DFID’s radar. DFID Ministers are reviewing the role of small NGOs in delivering international objectives, and we would be very grateful if they were to proceed on that more positively.

I want to issue an apology to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). During proceedings on the statement on personal independence payments made by the Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions in late February, I asked about reports of the hon. Gentleman’s comments about PIP and those suffering from mental health conditions. The Secretary of State advised me that his hon. Friend had issued an apology for his reported remarks and hoped that the House would accept that. Obviously I completely accept the assurance of the Secretary of State and the apology issued on the hon. Gentleman’s website, which I have since had a chance to visit. Having raised the matter as a complaint, it is only right for me to put on record my acceptance of his position.

There is still a case for the fire service to have a statutory duty to deal with flooding. I see the chair of the all-party group on fire safety rescue, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), in the Chamber. The Government’s position has been that the fire brigade will turn up to floods like it turns up to fires, special services and road traffic crashes. Those are all now statutory duties, but it took decades for them to arrive. I think that a statutory duty on flooding will arrive, but the quicker it does, the better. I welcome the joint working between the fire service and the national health service on social care issues in Greater Manchester, and with the ambulance service in London. I recognise that in many counties the fire service is now answering more medical calls than fire calls. This is clearly moving the fire service into more combined working. The Government are disinclined to create a fire and emergency medical rescue service, as we see in most other countries. However, it seems to be happening none the less, even though the Government are not putting it forward.

The final political matter I want to raise is the lack of prosecutions following the court case on electoral fraud and other offences in Tower Hamlets. Despite the judgments and penalties handed down by the electoral court, and despite the allegations of fraud, corruption, mortgage fraud, wrongful disposal of buildings, abuse of grants and so on, there have been no prosecutions—all has gone unpunished. I hope that the review by the Mayor of London and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary might mean that something will be satisfactorily concluded for the residents of Tower Hamlets.

Naturally, last week’s events are still very fresh, as is the grieving of the families and friends of those who were killed and seriously injured, who are very much in our thoughts. The lockdown was a stressful experience for many of us here in the Chamber and the Lobbies, notwithstanding the safety we were in. I want to place on record my thanks to the Deputy Speaker, the Doorkeepers, the police and security officers, and other staff for looking after us. I hope that we all have a safe and peaceful Easter, and that those who are still in emotional and physical pain secure some relief.

Draft Immigration Act 2014 (Current Accounts) (Excluded Accounts and Notification Requirements) Regulations 2016

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 General Committees

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you presiding over our considerations this morning, Mr Nuttall. I apologise to the Minister if he has already covered this point but I will be brief. My concern reinforces that articulated by the two shadow spokespersons.

Over many years, I have seen constituents failed by the asylum system. They have been declared illegal but subsequently identified errors in the paperwork made by the Home Office, the immigration authorities or the tribunal. I assume that under these regulations they would be regarded as illegals. Numerous constituents, on a rehearing or appeal, have subsequently demonstrated that they are entitled to be in this country and ought not to have been classified as illegal in the first instance. However, because they are illegal they are ruled not to have access to any state funds or benefits. They live on charity from family and friends, churches and local mosques. I fear that the regulations, robbing those few who do have some bank funds and accounts, could exacerbate the situation and make more people destitute, particularly those who can ultimately demonstrate that they have a right to be here.

To echo my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, this looks like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I will support my Front-Bench colleagues in any Division they call, unless the Minister can reassure us that more people who are entitled to be here but were initially ruled illegal will not be thrown into greater destitution through not being able to work until their case is solved and not being entitled to access benefits while what little funds they may be able to call on are frozen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

My understanding is that the Home Office can consider any exceptional circumstances. If I have heard correctly, my hon. Friend’s case involved an appeal. Someone appealing a decision would not be subject to this legislation in the first case. I reiterate that only those people who have no right to remain and who have exhausted all the avenues available to them will be subject to it.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My point is that I have had a number of constituents over the years who have exhausted, or apparently exhausted, those avenues and been declared illegal, who have then found—to pick up on the comment made by the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield—another route to challenge the decision. Sometimes they are straightforwardly delaying until such time as they can succeed; in some instances, they are not delaying, and genuinely new evidence has come to light, or an error has been identified.

The period between being declared illegal and winning that particular point of law or correcting data that the Home Office has got wrong can be years. What the Minister is saying is that during the course of those years, they will not be able to access what little money they might have in a bank account, and will rely on the charity of friends and family, churches, food banks and mosques. To reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, we are on this planet; we just disagree with the points that he is putting forward.

[Simon Kirby]

The hon. Gentleman raises a valuable point. My understanding is that if that were the case, the Home Office would be open to argument. The instrument is a small piece of legislation in a wide range of tools. I feel obliged to mention the £140 million announced at the Conservative party conference for a controlling migration fund specifically designed to ease the pressures on public services in areas of high immigration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey raised an alternative perspective. It is about getting the balance right and providing the welcome that the UK is famous for—not putting up barriers, being outward-facing and globally-looking—while, at the same time, providing a degree of fairness when it comes to people who should not remain in this country.

Summer Adjournment

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) on becoming Deputy Leader of the House. There are a number of issues I wish to raise before the House adjourns for the summer recess.

London City Airport has been a great success, and I urge the Government to approve the City Airport development programme. The CADP will result in 32,000 extra flight movements and 2 million more passengers, and will double the airport’s contribution to the national economy.

I recently met Ferrero UK to learn more about its sport and move programme, and the work in partnership with local football clubs like mine in Southend, Southend United. So far it has been responsible for 200,000 hours of activity and education in over 250 schools over the last school year. I support its activities—and its chocolates are delicious.

A 12-year-old boy called Oliver King suffered a fatal cardiac arrest during a swimming race in March 2011. A trust was set up in his name, and, as a result, more than 800 defibrillators have been placed in schools and other organisations. We have one in Southend. I do hope that colleagues will support the Oliver King Foundation.

About 54% of the population of the United Kingdom experience a skin condition in any 12-month period, ranging from eczema to skin cancer. I urge my colleagues at the Department of Health to ensure that a dedicated lead for dermatology is appointed within NHS England to address the training of general practitioners and nurses in this vital area of healthcare.

The Fit For Work UK Coalition recently came to meet with me to discuss its work in helping people with long-term conditions such as arthritis to return to work. I support its work.

Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust has revealed to most colleagues in the House that every year more than 3,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer. It should therefore be a matter of great concern to us that screening rates are falling. We need to do something about that.

I recently visited Edinburgh zoo because I had had complaints from a few of my constituents about the way in which the animals were being kept. I am delighted to report to the House that I thought Edinburgh zoo was absolutely marvellous and that the animals are very well kept there.

Southend University Hospital rheumatology department is a centre of excellence, and I recently had the privilege of being shown round it. I was told about the tragic consequences for people with a condition called giant cell arteritis—GCA—not being diagnosed. I am delighted to say that the department has devised a fast-track pathway for the diagnosis and treatment of this devastating condition, which will prevent people from losing their sight.

I recently re-opened a business—if that is possible—in Leigh-on-Sea. It started up in 2004, and I am going to make the claim that it is the best fitter of kitchens in Leigh-on-Sea.

Over and over again, we in the House talk about what we are going to do for people who suffer from mental health difficulties. Many people are placed in the invidious situation of having to get a loved one sectioned, and it is a very upsetting process. Rather than just saying that we are going to do something about this, we really need to improve the care of people with mental health conditions. As a Member of Parliament, I certainly see many more people with such conditions than I used to.

I hope the House already knows that Southend will be the alternative city of culture next year. We had a launch on my balcony overlooking Westminster Square last week, and it will be the best gig in the country next year.

I have said in the House on a number of occasions how disappointed I am about the re-timetabling of trains run by C2C. More needs to be done, and we need new rolling stock.

Last week, we held our second responsible pet ownership competition on the green by Victoria Tower, and I am delighted to say that it was won by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and her lurcher, Milo.

There have been too many instances of dogs’ food being poisoned in Southend. Apparently it is because the dogs’ owners are not picking up the mess. I hope that we can turn that round.

I am delighted that this country voted on 23 June to leave the European Union, but my goodness, aren’t there some sour grapes? I really hope that the country will come together and make the most of the opportunity we have been given.

I am disappointed that the Chilcot report has been overshadowed. I look forward to the Scottish National party’s Supply day debate, because there must be consequences as a result of the Chilcot report.

Last weekend I was in Paris for a rally in support of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. I hope that Madam Rajavi will be allowed to come and speak in this country.

The Conservatives took back control of Southend Council a month ago. We have inherited an absolute shambles, particularly in the area of waste management, and something needs to be done. The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) also mentioned waste management.

All Members have a nightmare with school catchment areas. I do in Southend, and I hope that the new Education Secretary can provide some guidance.

I am not very happy with Atos assessments, which are very poorly conducted and need improvement.

I am disgusted with National Grid for deciding that it will undertake all sorts of roadworks in Southend, gumming up the town.

I hope that the national lottery will give some support to the wonderful Southend Festival Chorus.

I am not very happy with South Essex Homes, which should certainly allow the King’s Money Advice Centre to remain.

Finally, I visited the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths on Monday. It does fantastic work.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am very surprised that he said “finally” without having mentioned that our football club West Ham United will move into the Olympic stadium and play its first match there during the recess. I am sure he will want to wish them well for the seasons and years ahead before he sits down.

[Sir David Amess]

I absolutely do; not to have done so would have been a great faux pas. I meant to say that London City airport is a wonderful supporter of West Ham United. Our old manager is now running the England team—good luck with that one!—but I very much hope that West Ham will win the premier league next year after the wonderful achievements of Leicester.

I congratulate the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, which is a fantastic livery company—one of 12 in the City of London—with a charter that dates back to 1327. It gives a huge amount of money to charity and is excellent on apprenticeships.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, Mr Speaker, the other two Deputy Speakers, all the people who work in the House and colleagues a very happy summer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am very pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I call him my friend despite having been on different sides of the argument earlier, and despite having been brought up in Glasgow, where the Apprentice Boys and the Orange Order were not as affectionately remembered by my community—as it was, my maternal grandfather was a member of the lodge and the order. My hon. Friend brings to the Chamber an important message about the tolerance, understanding and mutual respect of the peace agreement in Northern Ireland. That is really important, and we need to make sure it is absolutely solid. If there is anything we can do to help, we ought to do that.

I have welcomed the Deputy Leader of the House to his place. I welcome the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) to his new place as well, and I wish him success in his role.

I want to raise a few issues. The first is London’s new cruise terminal, which is very welcome as part of London’s tourist infrastructure. It is being built at Enderby Wharf in Greenwich, and it is causing a bit of controversy. One of the big issues in London, as we know, is air quality, and Mayor Sadiq Khan has made it a priority of his administration. The one deficit in the planning application for the cruise terminal in Greenwich is that there is no shore-to-ship power supply, which means that cruise ships will be parking in Greenwich, in the middle of London, and having to run their big diesel engines 24/7 to provide their electricity. There is no planning requirement or planning regulation in that respect from the Port of London authority, the London boroughs, the European Union or the UK Government, although other European ports do make it a requirement and Southampton would want it.

I had a long-standing meeting planned for Monday with the then Minister of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), but I got an email from the Government on Sunday saying that the Minister had been reshuffled and that the meeting was postponed. I would therefore be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House would feed back to DEFRA that we really need that meeting to be reorganised as quickly as possible.

There are a whole number of major issues on leasehold reform. England is one of the few countries in the world that still have leasehold—it does not exist in Scotland—resulting in unfair ground rents, excessive service charges, retirement home rip-offs, restricted lengths of leases and expensive dispute resolution procedures. It took us two and a half years to get the Department for Communities and Local Government to recognise that there were not 2.5 million leaseholders in Britain. It has now recalculated the number at 4.1 million, but the leasehold reform MPs who are active in the Chamber think there are more like 7 million, and those people are being ripped off.

This area of legislation urgently needs reform, and I am grateful to the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership—the charity campaigning on this area—which helps the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and me. We are forming an all-party group on the issue in September, and I invite all colleagues to join it to ensure that we can put pressure on the Government and get leasehold reform.

Bangladesh was raised during business questions by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). He may have raised it again during this debate, but I missed his speech. There is great concern among many friends of Bangladesh in this House about the recent terrorist activity and murders of secularists, intellectuals, academics and bloggers. The hon. Gentleman organised a very good meeting earlier this week about attacks on members of minority communities. I would be grateful if the Government could do all that they can to help the Government of Bangladesh to address the question of terrorism and intolerance in that country.

On the Chennai 6, I commend the work of the all-party group, especially its chair, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), which recently held a meeting in Portcullis House. I am wearing my shipwrights tie—I am a member of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights—and, as a former shipping Minister, I know a thing or two about shipping. There are six Brits in jail in India. They were armed security guards protecting a ship against piracy when it left India, but they breached security regulations. The courts in India cannot make up their minds—they were convicted, freed and then convicted again—and they have been languishing in jail for 1,000 days. I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to impress on the Foreign Office the need for it to redouble its efforts to get them released. The Mission to Seafarers and Rev. Canon Ken Peters have been working really hard to look after the families.

I have already mentioned West Ham United playing their first game in the Olympic stadium. Like the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), I wish them well in their new home. They will go from strength to strength.

I congratulate the 31 Tower Hamlets air cadet training corps in Mile End. I am its honorary president. Lieutenant Rex Nichols and his volunteers have been responsible for another fantastic year for the young people in the air cadets.

Secondary schools in Tower Hamlets were on the floor 20 years ago, but they are now all punching above the national average in the educational performance league tables. That means that our young people in east London, who are as bright and smart as kids anywhere else in the country, are having a great start in life. East London is sharing in the wealth of this great city for the first time in history, and a very important generation is coming through.

I congratulate all of my constituents who received honours in either the new year’s honours list or the Queen’s 90th birthday honours list on their achievement, especially Dr Sheila Fitzpatrick, who I declare happens to be my wife, on being awarded an MBE for her work as a national trustee of the Marine Society and Sea Cadets and as a trustee of the Sreepur village orphanage in Bangladesh, as well as for other activities. That is obviously very important to her and to me. I am very proud of what she has achieved.

In conclusion, I wish you, Mr Speaker, and your team, as well as every other colleague and all the staff of the House, a very restful recess. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) Order 2016

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 General Committees

[John Penrose]

I will endeavour to respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. I start by saying that I completely agree that the so-called missing millions—people who have never been on the electoral register—is indeed a national scandal. There are some groups that are woefully under-registered and therefore woefully under-represented in our democracy. I hope that we can all agree, on a cross-party basis, that that needs to be put right. In fact, I think it is stronger and better if we can agree on that on a cross-party basis, because it will reassure people, whichever under-represented group they may be in, that this is not something in which one particular party has a party political axe to grind for its electoral advantage; it is something that is right for democracy, no matter what. If we can make common cause—I am pleased to hear that we are—we can make progress.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out that some BME groups are woefully under-represented. She mentioned young black males in particular, but there are other groups as well. It is interesting to note that in some areas some BME groups are over-represented—not in terms of there being too many of them, but because their representation is above the national average. That is to be welcomed. There is nothing necessarily linked to being part of the BME community that means they must be under-represented or that they are necessarily hard to reach. Different approaches need to apply to different communities within the BME classification. A tailored approach is needed for each, because the problems are clearly not the same in every case.

The hon. Lady also mentioned other groups. Students are frequently cited, but they are actually an example of a much broader category of people who live in short-term rented accommodation, for which levels of registration are a great deal lower. That is not necessarily because people do not want to register, but because, as a practical matter, it is relatively difficult for the local electoral registration officer to keep up with people who move quite regularly. They may therefore lose track of those people, who will drop off the register at that point.

There is one other group that is by far the largest, in terms of numbers, and also the least well-represented on the register in terms of percentage registration: expatriate voters. We currently have a couple million ex-pats who have been living abroad for less than 15 years. They are legally entitled to vote but only something like 5% of them are currently registered. That is a huge scandal. It is actually far worse than any of the other groups we have been talking about, and in some cases worse than several of them put together. We need to ensure that they are included in any of our calculations.

The hon. Lady specifically asked how we will evaluate the success or failure of some of those canvass pilots. Clearly not all of them will be successful. I mentioned that local authorities will be running control groups as well as pilot groups, so these will be properly controlled experiments that can be used to compare those groups within the same area or within neighbouring areas where the new process has been applied. The outcomes and results will be independently evaluated by the Electoral Commission to ensure that an independent view is taken. It will want to be as rigorous and scientific in its approach as possible, and we will therefore learn a great deal about what does and does not work.

Another idea that we are considering is effectively to set up an online academy where the results of these pilots and others will be published in a transparent fashion, so that everyone can see which bits worked and which did not. That will be of interest not only to us as elected parliamentarians, but to electoral registration officers elsewhere in the country. They will be able to look at what has happened in Birmingham, Ryedale or wherever and see which techniques might be useful and they might want to copy. They will be able to see the detail, the methodology applied and the outcomes, and they will publish their results when they try it, too, therefore creating a virtuous circle of learning.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

The Minister and I have debated the anomalies in Tower Hamlets before, where there have been accusations of electoral fraud and so on. How will the Electoral Commission accommodate those anomalies into the overall scheme of things to make sure that the results are not skewed and that they provide a result that is of benefit to local authorities in understanding the best way to go forward?

[John Penrose]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have debated this in the past, and the only point on which I disagree with his comments is that we are now talking not just about accusations of electoral fraud, but about actual convictions. The situation is a great deal worse than people might otherwise think.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I was not defending them.

[John Penrose]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was not defending them at all; he is pursuing the need to improve things. The answer to his question is that, because we are trialling these different ideas with control groups—it is not quite a randomised control trial, but it is the closest we can get to a genuinely scientific method in these situations—we should be able to compare places in which they have and have not been tried. The differences will be readily apparent and will be auditable and accessible to those elsewhere in the country, if we go ahead with the idea of an online academy.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood asked what would happen if somebody’s email address was out of date, and whether they would get no contact from the local electoral registration officer as a result. I mentioned in my opening remarks that the initial household notification letter in these trials will be sent by post and will land on the doormat at a physical address. Follow-ups can then be done online or in some other way, but the initial contact will still happen by post.

In the two areas where the trials will be backed up by local council data, if there is no follow-up contact and the local electoral registration officer knows, for example, that someone is on the council tax database but is not responding in a particular area, they can then focus their resources and efforts on that address because there is likely to be somebody there who is not responding and is not registered. Incidentally, it may be that somebody is not responding because they are not a legitimate voter—they might be a foreign national and therefore ineligible to vote—but it is important for the electoral registration officer to pursue that point to a satisfactory resolution if they know from other records that somebody is there.

I hope that has answered the points we have been dealing with and reassured everybody, and that we can therefore approve the draft order forthwith.

Question put and agreed to.

Electoral Fraud: Tower Hamlets

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Monday 18th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise the concern of many of my constituents not only about the breathtaking decision of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Service not to prosecute following the judgment of the election court in the case of fraud at the 2014 mayoral election in Tower Hamlets, but about the way that decision was communicated.

If I may, I will briefly lay out some of the background. There have been regular allegations about electoral fraud in Tower Hamlets at almost every election in recent years. Following the chaos at the 2014 mayoral election, especially at the count at the Troxy centre, many complaints were again registered. This time, however, there was a major difference. In the absence of prosecutorial action and to the embarrassment of local political parties, four brave citizens—Andy Erlam, Debbie Simone, Azmal Hussein and Angela Moffat—decided, at considerable personal risk, to raise a private prosecution in the election court. As you know, Mr Speaker, that court has all the powers of the High Court or the Court of Session.

As long ago as 1947, a report produced by a committee considering electoral law reform commented:

“Irregularities in elections should not be regarded as a private wrong which an individual must come forward to remedy, but as attempts to wreck the machinery of representative government, and, as an attack upon national institutions which the nation should concern itself to repel”.

The committee also noted that

“the integrity of elections…concerns the community as a whole”.

Those words should give us some idea of the enormity and significance of what the four Tower Hamlets petitioners did not only for Tower Hamlets, but for the whole of the national electorate. Indeed, the judge stated:

“To bring an election petition as a private citizen requires enormous courage”,

as, for the petitioners, it involves

“a potentially devastating bill of costs”.

He also observed the misery that the petitioners faced, who

“would be portrayed as racists and Islamophobes, attempting to set aside the election...And so it proved. The Petitioners have been duly vilified—but they have hung in there.”

No one suffered in this respect more than petitioner Azmal Hussein, whose efforts to highlight and bring to an end corruption in the borough of Tower Hamlets brought all manner of vile abuse literally to his door. The verbal abuse and threats lasted right through to the case in the High Court. Azmal Hussein was told he should die for challenging the election result, and was despised as someone who failed to join others in the view that ethnic and religious solidarity should outweigh any respect for democracy and fair play. Mr Hussein’s van and restaurant window were vandalised, but he stayed resolute and strong.

The judge quite rightly said in his judgment:

“The court expresses surprise that this Petition was not brought by the Labour Party.”

His words resonate, embarrassingly, with many of us. It should not have been left to four tenacious and brave individuals to insist that democracy, not Kray twins-style gangsterism, should be the system that governs in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

I want to say a word in praise of Mr Hoar, who provided the legal representation for the four plaintiffs. I echo the sentiments of the judge, who said in his judgment:

“For Mr Hoar, this has been a complete tour de force. He accepted the case on the basis of direct access”,

as his four clients could not afford to instruct solicitors. Of his efforts, the judge said:

“By any standards this was a considerable feat and worthy of the admiration of the court.”

After a trial lasting 30 days, with Mr Richard Mawrey QC sitting as a judge, on 23 April 2015 Lutfur Rahman was reported personally guilty and guilty by his agents of corrupt and illegal practices, of making false statements of fact about another candidate’s personal conduct or character, of administering council grants in a way which constituted electoral bribery and of spiritual intimidation of voters. He was also reported guilty by his agents of personation, postal vote fraud, fraudulent registration of voters and illegal payment of canvassers. That is quite a list.

The judge also stated that

“the financial affairs of THF”—

Tower Hamlets First—

“were, at best, wholly irresponsible and at worst, dishonest.”

The judge’s observations indicated that he recognised that character assassination had happened not only during the election campaign, but in the court. In referring to evidence given by THF members about a woman who gave evidence against them, he said that

“the three men were quite deliberately lying.”

In the end, the election of May 2014 was declared void, with Mr Rahman disqualified from holding electoral office for five years. The court judgment says:

“These penalties are entirely separate from any criminal sanctions that might be imposed if the candidate concerned is prosecuted to conviction for an electoral offence.”

In an article in The Guardian, Dave Hill said of Judge Mawrey:

“He did not give Rahman a back alley kicking of the type that recur in the more gruesome East End mythologies, but he did dish out a legal equivalent.”

As I understand it, the level of proof required by the election court is equivalent to that in criminal law, rather than civil law. The judgment states:

“It is settled law that the court must apply the criminal standard of proof, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

It later says:

“Thus the court will apply a) the criminal standard of proof to the charges that Mr Rahman and/or his agents have been guilty of corrupt or illegal practices; b) the criminal standard of proof to the question of whether there has been general corruption”.

The plaintiffs have been seeking costs. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has recently confirmed that Mr Rahman is to appear before its disciplinary tribunal. At the very least, there are suggestions that he has been hiding his assets, offloading to his family or not declaring properties owned here and in Bangladesh. As was reported recently in the East London Advertiser,

“The £500,000 legal costs of the original six-week election trial was awarded against Rahman,”

although, as the article went on to say, £3 million of property assets have been frozen. The four petitioners are still trying to recoup heavy financial losses from Mr Rahman.

There is talk of a property in Bow that is owned by Mr Rahman, although it takes some effort to get beyond the layers of complication in respect of his properties, with his wife claiming part-ownership and beneficial interest. There is also undeclared income to the taxman on two properties that they rented out. It seems that money and property are sloshing around, adding additional features to the catalogue of wrongdoing. Mr Rahman, meanwhile, has declared himself bankrupt.

On the question of property, the judge referred to a particular address, 16 Prioress House, and its place within this narrative of dodgy dealings. Two THF candidates had asserted that they lived at that address. The judgment declared:

“I am completely satisfied that neither of these two THF candidates ever resided at 16 Prioress House.”

It states that they were therefore

“guilty of an offence under s 61”.

The judge drew a number of conclusions on the issue of grants, including, for the record, that

“enormous sums of public money had been paid to organisations in excess of that which Council officers had recommended and, in many instances, to organisations that had not even applied for grants”.

The judgment states that

“a total of 15 applications receiving aggregate funding of £243,500 did not meet minimum eligibility criteria and so were not scored by officers”,

and continues:

“Further, 21 applications totalling £455,700, which did meet the minimum eligibility criteria, but did not meet the minimum quality threshold score of 40, were successful in the final awards.”

The judgment went on to say:

“By way of another example, grants totalling just under £100,000 were handed out to ten organisations, all Bangladeshi or other Muslim organisations, for lunch clubs when none of them had even applied for a grant.”

It states that

“organisations deemed totally ineligible…found themselves the grateful recipients of tens of thousands pounds of public money”,

and that

“£352,000 was awarded without an open application process”

from a fund called the “954 Fund”. It continues:

“Shadwell’s grant increased from £204,386 to £460,750”,

meaning that it more than doubled. Subsequently,

“Shadwell returned two THF candidates…Bow East, on the other hand, saw its grant reduced from the officers’ recommendation of £99,397—cut by roughly a third to £67,000.”

The opposite effect to what we saw in Shadwell is all too clear:

“Bow East returned three Labour Councillors.”

We can do nothing but conclude that Tower Hamlets First candidates benefited from money that their party invested locally.

The judge’s conclusion? I quote:

“Was the making of those grants corrupt? Again, this seems inescapable.”

He observed that it was bribery

“by any ethical or moral standards”,

but posed the question,

“is it bribery contrary to s 113 of the 1983 Act?”

In its formal conclusions the judgment says:

“The court is satisfied and certifies that in the election for the Mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets held on 22 May 2014...the First Respondent Mr Rahman was personally guilty and guilty by his agents of an illegal practice contrary to s 106 of the 1983 Act…the First Respondent Mr Rahman was personally guilty and guilty by his agents of a corrupt practice contrary to s 113 of the 1983 Act…the First Respondent Mr Rahman was personally guilty and guilty by his agents of a corrupt practice contrary to s 115 of the 1983 Act.”

Scotland Yard dropped its investigation into electoral fraud after finding

“insufficient evidence that criminal offences had been committed”.

How does that tally with the election court’s findings? Detectives launched their investigation after Mr Rahman was found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices. How can practices with such a description not be worthy of prosecution? I have written to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about these matters, and have secured a meeting soon with Commissioner Hogan-Howe, when I hope to raise these and other questions.

The police findings have led Mr Rahman’s supporters to claim that he has been proven innocent of all charges. Who can blame them? As pointed out by local Conservative Councillor Peter Golds,

“if the police fail to prosecute, there are no convictions and therefore no fraud…Even a successful election petition can be swept under the carpet when the police do nothing.”

It should be noted that the judge paid tribute to Councillor Golds, by whom the petitioners “have been greatly aided”.

The Bangladeshi media in Tower Hamlets have reported events as anticipated. Mr Ted Jeory, a reporter of high reputation who has long taken an interest in these matters, says:

“The Bengali media failed miserably in their journalistic duty to hold the borough’s leaders to account. Instead of ‘without fear or favour’, there was far too much fear and they were full of favour. Lutfur…demanded almost nationalistic loyalty to his cause, and it was given. They did their readers and viewers a huge disservice.”

Mr Speaker, I hope you can imagine the consternation all this has caused in Tower Hamlets to all of our residents interested in democracy, regardless of their colour, religion or background.

On the various views of the court and its findings, I feel it is worth pointing out that, contrary to what Mr Rahman’s supporters have espoused, the judge was not interested in indulging in a wholehearted, blinkered condemnation of the former mayor. However, the judge highlighted the extent to which the former mayor’s supporters nursed and perpetrated the belief that they and their candidate were victims:

“In their minds, they were being targeted because they were Bangladeshi and Muslim: so their critics were necessarily racists and Islamophobes.”

Such swiftly dispatched gibes not only slander, besmirch and cause distress—as they are designed to do—to those innocent of such charges, but they devalue the terms and diminish the plight of those who experience and suffer real prejudice.

The election court says Lutfur Rahman is guilty, but the CPS and the MPS say there is not enough evidence. However, there are suggestions that other inquiries into aspects of fraud and corruption are ongoing. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined exactly what is going on. Which inquiries are still ongoing? Where do the plaintiffs stand in respect of recovering their costs? Where do voters stand in terms of having confidence in electoral arrangements in the future? The Government have appointed commissioners to rebuild the public’s confidence that the system can protect against bribery and corruption, and is robust enough to prevent those who have contempt for our democracy from continuing to undermine it in the future. Can the Minister reassure us that the new Mayor, John Biggs, and the commissioners are on track to deliver?

With the greatest respect to the Minister, I had expected the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice to respond to this debate, or perhaps a Justice Minister. I received a nice letter from the Policing Minister who said that a Minister from the Department for Communities and Local Government would respond, but it is actually a Cabinet Office Minister. As he knows, I hold him in high regard, and I mean no disrespect. It does not matter to me—I want a Government response, and I am sure that he will be able to provide one. These are serious matters, so I hope that he will reassure the good people of Tower Hamlets that the authorities will defend their rights, ensure that their elections are not stolen again in future, and say that the petitioners will receive the costs to which they are entitled.

Canary Wharf Bombing: Compensation

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered compensation for victims of the Canary Wharf bombing.

It is a pleasure to see you presiding over the debate, Ms Dorries. It is also very good to see the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, in his place. I know that the Treasury, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Justice have been passing or sharing responsibility for this issue among them. I am grateful that a Treasury Minister is here, because I think that this is a financial question. Some issues of compensation are an MOJ responsibility and some issues are a Foreign Office responsibility, but a number of the key questions that I want to ask relate to British financial policy, as I hope to make clear. I am grateful that the Treasury is represented here today to respond to the debate. To be honest, I do not really care which Department takes responsibility and responds. What the victims and I want to see is action.

Two weeks and 20 years ago today, the Canary Wharf bomb detonated. The bombing marked the end of a 17-month IRA ceasefire. It was recently the subject of an excellent BBC Four documentary, broadcast to commemorate the event, entitled “Executing the Peace”. The half-tonne bomb was left in a small lorry about 80 yards from South Quay station on the docklands light railway. It exploded at 19:02 GMT 90 minutes after coded warnings were telephoned to Dublin and Belfast media. Inam Bashir and John Jeffries died when the bomb went off outside their shop on 9 February 1996. Many more people were injured, a number seriously.

I have been trying for a number of years to assist the Docklands Victims Association to secure compensation for the victims who suffered, and are still suffering in many cases, and for the families of those who were killed. The Docklands Victims Association is not alone in seeking justice; many other victims are also trying to do so.

The starting point for all this seems easy enough. Semtex explosive was sold by the Czechs to the Libyan regime of Colonel Gaddafi. It then supplied that Semtex to various terrorist organisations, including the IRA. That Semtex killed and maimed people. But from there things get much less clear. To its credit, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs—I am pleased to see its Chair, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), in his place—is engaged in an inquiry trying to get to the bottom of this. I cannot do justice, in my brief remarks, to the evidence that it has already heard or the conclusions and recommendations that it will deliver, but its report, I suspect, will not be kind to successive British Governments over the last almost 20 years. I simply wish to ask the Minister why UK citizens have not been compensated, unlike citizens in the United States, Germany and France who were also victims of Semtex supplied by Gaddafi.

One of the most powerful statements that I heard in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee sessions was from Mr Jason McCue, representing victims in Northern Ireland. He said:

“Victims…are front-line troops in the war on terror...We have a duty of care to them, and yet we do not seem to value them in our society, like others do—like the French or the Americans do. We do not give them that value; we do not give them that respect. We do not see the humanity in them, and their strength in the war on terror. There is no stronger counter-terrorism measure than a victim standing up”.

The question for me and many colleagues—a number are in the Chamber today—is not whether the victims should be compensated but how. There are several possible ways, and all have been mentioned in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee hearings, in which members are examining those ways and have suggested a number of parliamentary questions to tease out even more information on this very difficult issue.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising this very important issue again on behalf of his constituents. The Docklands Victims Association is doing tremendous work and working with victims elsewhere whose victimhood came about as a result of Semtex supplied by Gaddafi. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that Members from Northern Ireland fully support the campaign for compensation in this case, because it will mean compensation right across the board for many other victims as well. We fully support the case and wish him well.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that expression of support. He, too, has campaigned strongly on this issue for many years. This is a more general case; it is not exclusively about the Docklands Victims Association. Obviously, those victims are in my constituency, but many others across the country are also involved, and what we want to see is justice for them all.

I was exploring the possible ways forward. The first way forward would have been for the British Government to join a class action with the US Government in their claim for compensation. I would like to quote Mr McCue again. He said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans):

“There was no reason why the British Government could not have, first of all, petitioned for the British citizens to be in it. There is nothing in American law preventing them from espousing a claim, which is the technical term for it, with another state to bring compensation for a class action. The Americans could have done it.”

A Mr Jury, another witness at the Northern Ireland hearings who was also representing victims, said:

“Can I add to that that the Libya Claims Settlement Agreement is a court-accepted statement of liability towards the UK victims? Under US law, there has been an acceptance of liability, and under judicial international comity, the UK courts would accept that anyway.”

Therefore there is, or at least was, the possibility of an international legal route to compensation, but my main question to the Government is why is there not, or why can there not be, a UK domestic route?

There have been reports that the UK Government have frozen Gaddafi or Libyan assets in UK banks. I suspect that the Treasury was behind that, which is why I have targeted the question in this debate at Treasury Ministers. The amount of funds is not clear. Some commentators suggest £900 million; others suggest that it runs into billions of pounds. That raises a number of questions for the Minister, of which I gave his office notice last evening. I must congratulate the Minister’s private office, because it was still emailing me at half-past 8 last night to try to get to the bottom of some of this.

First, do such frozen accounts exist and, secondly, what are they worth if they do exist? More importantly, there are international legal precedents that enable frozen assets of a terrorist or dictator—in this case, Gaddafi—to be used to pay compensation to victims, so my third and most important question, to which I will return at the end of my remarks, is why do the UK Government not go down that route?

A third route is now apparently being explored. An article in The Daily Telegraph on 16 January quoted the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who, to his credit, attended the memorial service in my constituency two weeks ago, on 9 February. He did not tell me that he was coming, but it was good to see him there anyway, and other parliamentary colleagues. The article stated:

“Tobias Ellwood, a Foreign Office minister, told The Telegraph that he had met new Prime Minister designate of Libya, Fayez el-Sarraj, and raised the case for compensation with him in person.”

The hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying:

“We will certainly make the case with the Libyan government in order to pursue this as best we can.

As soon as there is a government to work with I am planning to facilitate bringing the victims’ groups and the Libyan authorities together. It is for the Libyans themselves to say whether or not there would be a case for a request for compensation.”

There are, therefore, three possible ways to compensate victims: join a class action in the US, use interest from frozen assets in the UK or get the new Libyan Government to cough up.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for initiating this debate, because it enables me to raise the case of Charles Arbuthnot, who is a constituent of mine in Holbrook and whose sister Jane, a 22-year-old WPC, was murdered in the Harrods bombing. I have had extensive correspondence with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), and it seems to me that there is still not explicit acceptance that American citizens were compensated by the Libyan Government. Previously, there would be reference only to direct compensation, for example for the Lockerbie bombing, and not to compensation for those cases in which the Semtex was supplied.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I know that this is one of the key issues that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is looking at, because evidence was given about the way the Americans secured compensation. That is why I am raising with the Treasury the question whether the frozen assets and the interest on them could be used to compensate the docklands victims, as well as the Harrods bomb victims and others from Northern Ireland. It is a key question.

The Canary Wharf bombing victims do not care which is best. All they want is to secure the justice that they have been denied for more than 20 years for them and for other victims. Victims are represented by other colleagues, a number of whom are here today. Just yesterday I had two emails about this. One was from the office of the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) on behalf of Felicity Prazak, whose husband died on flight LN1103. The other email was from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who raised the case of Mina Jadeja, a victim of the Harrods bomb.

This is not, and has never been, about the money. However, media accounts of payouts for IRA members—for example, the reports on 30 January that £1.6 million was paid to a republican kidnap gang—can only add to and intensify the sense of injustice and frustration for the victims of the Gaddafi Semtex. Successive UK Governments have failed victims. I was a Minister in both the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown Administrations, and evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee suggests that the Blair Government were more interested in the glory of bringing Libya in from the cold, closing down its support for and sponsorship of international terrorism, opening up economic ties and securing UK business contracts.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my profound disappointment in the evidence given to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 11 December by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who said that he did not pursue compensation because, clearly, compensation was available? There was a scheme in Northern Ireland, but the same provisions were not available for the hundreds of victims in mainland Great Britain.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, and I am sure that will be a focus of the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, of which he is a respected member. I am not able to develop the powerful point as much as I would like to, but I am sure that the Committee will do so in due course.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I was at the memorial service last week with him and a number of other people. On the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we find it frustrating that former Prime Ministers Blair and Brown seem reluctant to give evidence on this very point. If we have to go to America to speak to people there to find out the truth, we certainly will.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee makes a powerful point that reinforces the concern I raised about the way the Blair Administration dealt with the situation. The Committee was also told that the Brown Government only became interested when the flak started flying over the Megrahi case, when he was being released back to Libya. The Foreign Office then set up the dedicated unit for victims, which, initially, was very enthusiastic, and the current Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), made some very positive statements about helping the victims when he was Leader of the Opposition. Notwithstanding all the reluctance, tokenism and lack of a conclusion, the victims just want results.

To return to the original question I asked a few minutes ago, I obtained this debate to ask a Minister from the Treasury whether there is a route, through frozen assets in the UK, to end the misery and delay. In my view, that is a Treasury question. If there is not a route, why not and when will the victims see justice? My final quote is from Mrs Hamida Bashir, whose son, Inam, was killed aged 29 at Canary Wharf. She wrote in correspondence:

“we do not require or will not accept any financial compensation for the loss of my Inam. However, due to the murder of Inam and John”—

John Jeffries—

“we do feel a tremendous moral obligation to support all those who have been left severely disabled. A victim such as Mr Zaoui Berezag who desperately needs your help as he is blind, paralysed, has the mental age of a small child and is an amputee. He is cared for by his wife Gemma within a modest council home in East London.”

What further eloquence do the Government need?

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. From the evidence received by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, it seems that we do not actually care about the victims. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is about time that we sat down and started looking at those who really need help?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because his intervention brings me to my concluding comments. This is not a party political issue, as is demonstrated by the fact that members of various parties are here expressing concerns about the issue. We all want the Government to address the issue and to come up with a solution, which successive Governments have not done over the past 20 years. The question affects constituencies across the country, including in Northern Ireland, which I have not really mentioned. The victims have been waiting too long.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will require a formal Government response to its report when it is published. Today, the Government have a chance to signal further commitment not only to the victims, who they have failed, but to the country, by acknowledging that the frontline troops fighting against terrorism are innocent civilians and by assuring us that when those civilians suffer at the hands of terrorists, their Government are ready to ensure that the sacrifice is acknowledged and the debt paid. So far, after 20 years, that sacrifice has not been acknowledged and the debt has not been paid. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful for this opportunity to wind up the debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, and I am grateful for the attendance of a number of colleagues, including my former colleague from Thurrock, Andrew MacKinlay, who has been supporting the victims for many years. I am grateful to the Minister for supplying new information on the £9.5 billion in frozen assets—that figure was not previously clear to me. I hope that information is of assistance to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

I did not expect today’s debate to provide a conclusion; I sought another little piece of the jigsaw to create a bigger picture and to help the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to produce a report that will get the Government to a position where, hopefully, they can bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. The victims have been waiting too long, and it is time to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. This debate has not concluded the matter, but I hope it is another step towards a conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Short Money and Policy Development Grant

Jim Fitzpatrick Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I keep on coming back to the central point that it is perfectly possible to undertake policy raising and policy development tasks more cheaply than before, as the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) mentioned. The rest of the country would not understand why, when everyone else has had to become more efficient, politicians should somehow be a special case. They would accuse us of feathering our own nests, and it would be extremely hard to justify that kind of action to anyone outside this place.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker, you said earlier that the Minister was one of the most courteous in the House—indeed he is—but he has now been in denial for the best part of half an hour. Does he not accept that the combination of a Trade Union Bill attacking Labour party funds, a boundary review that is likely to favour the Conservative party and a reduction in Short money and policy development money gives the impression outside this place that the Government are acting like the bully in the playground? The damage will be inflicted not on a child but on the integrity of Parliament and on the health of our democracy.

[John Penrose]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the boundary review. It is important that we all sign up to the principle that everybody’s vote, right the way across the country, no matter which constituency they might be in, should weigh the same. It cannot be right to have a system in which, in the past, Members of Parliament from some political parties have been elected in constituencies with many fewer people than others. People might justifiably ask why the Labour party, which benefited from that system for a very long time, is so against the notion of having equal votes for equal weight. I commend the new changes and the equalisation of the size of constituencies to all here.