Food Banks

John Hemming Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I have visited the new food bank in my constituency and the one in Sparkhill, just outside my constituency. Both are Trussell Trust food banks and both do excellent work. I congratulate the people who work in them. I have done welfare rights for about 25 years, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to send people in crisis somewhere where they can get emergency food aid.

The Trussell Trust website tells us how the trust was founded in 1997 and how food banks were born in 2000. It tells how the founder, Paddy Henderson, received a call in 2000

“from a desperate mother in Salisbury saying ‘my children are going to bed hungry tonight—what are you going to do about it?’ Paddy investigated local indices of deprivation and ‘hidden hunger’ in the UK. The shocking results showed that significant numbers of local people faced short term hunger as a result of a sudden crisis.”

This problem is not new, but the fact that there are now food banks is a positive thing.

[David Wright]

I think we would all acknowledge that there has always been a problem with people and families going hungry in this country. It is nothing new, but how does the hon. Gentleman explain the huge increase in the number of people presenting at food banks in recent years?

[John Hemming]

One aspect of that is that people such as myself who were unable to refer anyone to a food bank before can now do so. I have always seen people in a state of crisis—[Interruption.] No, I have seen people in a state of crisis, and the Trussell Trust also confirms that this was happening in 2000.

Let us look at an example involving habitual residency. I think that the House is united in not wanting benefit tourism. However, when people leave this country to go and live abroad for five or 10 years and then come back, they do not qualify for benefits because they have not been habitually resident here. They then come to see me and I tell them that, in such an emergency, I can send them down to the food bank. I have handed out vouchers to four people. It is true that some people end up in such a state that they cannot afford to cook the food, and that is something that we need to be aware of. They often do not want to go to the food bank for that reason. Similarly, the cost of the bus fare to the food bank can also be an issue. We have to recognise, however, that the habitual residency rule is not new. It has been around for some time. The Trussell Trust refers to “hidden hunger”. We all agree with the policy of having habitual residency qualifications for means-tested benefits.

Sanctions give me cause for concern. I have sat down with senior civil servants who have told me that there are no targets for sanctions, but I have also had confirmation from people working in the Department for Work and Pensions that they are under pressure for not having issued enough sanctions. I also see people who are being wrongly sanctioned. To me, that is very wrong. The safety net should be fair but, as I have said on a number of occasions, it is not operating properly at the moment.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) made an excellent speech, and I support everything he said, but I would also like to emphasise the point made by the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) about the yellow card system. The sanctioning system was originally designed to be punitive, but under the universal credit system, it is supposed to be less so. The Government have gone wrong in not having moved towards a compliance-oriented sanctions system and waiting for universal credit to bring that in. We should have changed how the system was initially set up under the previous Government. It was initially set up as a punitive system, but it should have been moved towards compliance. I would support the yellow card system, which the Trussell Trust also supports.

Again, the Labour party has to think carefully about its policy proposals. It proposes to increase the number of years someone has to work to qualify for contributory jobseeker’s allowance from two to five years. The effect of that will be to reduce the number of people who get contributory JSA, which is why the Labour party is suggesting it, but the families involved will then face exactly the same sort of crisis that will drive them to a food bank.

Let us consider what happens to a couple who are both in low-paid work and then one of them loses their job. Under Labour’s new proposals they will find themselves having an income crisis that they would not find under the Government’s current legislation. This is a complex issue of detail, and some of the Opposition’s proposals would make more people go to food banks. We need to look at how to deal with it in detail and protect people from hunger—hidden or unhidden.

Tributes to Nelson Mandela

John Hemming Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Today we have heard from some of the generals of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. I must admit that I was only a foot soldier. I was never even arrested. I was once asked to put down a glass that I was using to lubricate my shouting, which was directed at the South African ambassador. I have three children who are mixed race. That would not have been allowed had I been in South Africa. I therefore had a personal beef with the ambassador, which I put to him in a rather loud tone of voice.

Nelson Mandela’s love and devotion were not reserved only for his family, but extended to his country, his people and all those who have ever stood up to tyranny. His philosophy of reconciliation and of a search for forgiveness; his political endeavour for a peaceful, democratic transition from the dark night of apartheid; and his relentless courage in the face of adversity allow him to stand tall in comparison with those who sought to keep power through the sword and without the consent of the people.

Few manage to make a mark as bold and as long-lasting as Mandela’s. His time on this earth may be done, but his legacy will burn bright through the ages. As long as one person is dominated by another, as long as one person keeps another in slavery and bondage, and as long as freedom of thought and freedom of conscience cannot be tamed, he will stand as an example to those seeking the bright day of freedom, democracy, tolerance and mutual respect.

The key message, however, is that of forgiveness. After his release, Nelson Mandela called not for revenge but instead for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. When we look around the world at acts of vengeance, such as the difficulties in Bangladesh, Kashmir or, as was mentioned earlier, Sri Lanka, we see that the problem is that those acts of vengeance give rise to other acts of vengeance, and things go off the rails. To that extent, we have a massive amount for which to thank Nelson Mandela. We thank him for showing people that the way forward is not through acts of vengeance.

Succession to the Crown Bill (Allocation of Time)

John Hemming Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of the amendments. My concern about the motion is that Second Reading will be directly followed by Committee stage. The difficulty lies in the question of the role of Parliament, which one would presume is to legislate rather than to assent to legislation. Very often, Parliament is being driven to assent to legislation drafted in Whitehall.

The difficulty when Committee follows Second Reading concerns our ability to review the issues that are raised on Second Reading, even though we will have further consideration on Monday. The Bill of Rights, for example, was not just a matter between Parliament and the Crown; it involved the people of the country, too. The process of producing this Bill offers us no clarity about how to involve the people of this country in potentially important constitutional changes. I accept that that is not necessary in this case, but there would be circumstances in which a threshold might be met. If we changed documents that, when drafted, said that they could not be changed, that would require assent from the population. That has been accepted in relation to changes to our relationship and settlement with the EU. Perhaps we should be considering more widely when the people should be involved in decisions on constitutional changes, through a referendum or some other mechanism.

Other issues have not been sorted out, such as the lack of equality of treatment between a Queen and a King. A Queen cannot decide what to call her spouse, whereas a King can call his spouse either Queen or Princess Consort. Those questions are not being considered. We need time for issues raised on Second Reading to come back to the House in a proper manner. I accept that, unusually, amendments were allowed to be tabled before Second Reading, but in the future we should avoid Committee stage following Second Reading immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I am not British and not a royalist. I am a constitutional republican and an Irish nationalist. I do not purport to know all the possible consequences of the Bill and I do not pretend to care about some of those that I do know about. However, there are aspects of the Bill and of the consequences of passing it which persuade me that more time is needed. Those who care about these various consequences should be given more time, as should those of us who want to elaborate on some of the issues involved in the Bill—such as the fact that in the 21st century we still leave such sectarian language on the statute book.

The choice that we are making through the amendments that will result from this Bill puts a 21st century licence on arcane and offensive language. The provisions are quite sectarian. If a politician in Northern Ireland used the same language on a political platform, people would talk about incitement to religious hatred, but the Bill, for reasons of constitutional sensitivity, for reasons of ecclesiastical sensitivity to do with the constitutional settlement, leaves that language in place, safe and untouched.

If we were commenting on other regimes, other countries, other states that are being built and reformed, and if they were putting such intense, offensive and exclusive religious provisions into their constitution, we would be calling for all sorts of UN standards to be observed, we would be calling for reports and applying diplomatic pressure, and we would have the Foreign Secretary and others telling us from the Dispatch Box that they were trying to offer good and wise counsel to other people and other Parliaments and urging them not to rush such provisions. But that is precisely what is happening here.

I accept that, in the circumstances, there is obviously a timeliness and an urgency about particular provisions, specifically the gender discriminatory provision. As someone who believes fundamentally in civil rights and equality, I am for any provision that removes any layer of gender inequality from any aspect of the state’s life. Similarly, as someone absolutely committed to civil rights, I would want to support anything that removes any layer of religious discrimination. Although we are being allowed to remove one layer of religious discrimination in relation to the Bill, we are not allowed to address the others layers of religious discrimination that are still provided for and put into the infrastructure of the state. It is not a state that I particularly want to be part of. I have other aspirations in other directions, but I am not here to be subversive in any way. I have always respected the Queen and those who respect the Queen. I met her when I was Deputy First Minister—indeed, I was the first nationalist Minister to receive the Queen officially anywhere on the island of Ireland. As a Member of Parliament I have received her in my constituency and I have met her on other occasions, so I am not here in any way to disrespect. But those of us who have a different take on the Bill want time to bring up some of the issues that we want to highlight, just as we want to hear from others who want to highlight other issues.

[John Hemming]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems that because civil servants have been tasked with writing something to deal with a very narrow issue, they have ignored all the other issues, and the programme motion is preventing Parliament from properly considering various aspects?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, as happens with many such things. When the civil service and the parliamentary draftsmen are asked to look at things, their predictive text mentality focuses only on certain aspects and the rest of us cannot get any other logic or language in there. That is precisely the present situation. We do not have to take huge numbers of days to debate the Bill, but if Members are to be comfortable with how and what they are legislating for, we need more time.

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said that we now have separate stages, but the Report stage will be very compressed and when Lords amendments come to the House, there cannot be amendments to them in this House, as far as I can see, unless they are tabled by a Minister of the Crown. There will be a very short Report stage and a short stage for Lords amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I am grateful for that further erudite contribution from my hon. Friend. I suspect that might be a matter in respect of which he would wish to extend the scope of the Bill, and I shall have to return to that point.

[John Hemming]

Does the Minister not agree that this is a unique Bill in that it is being sent around to the nations of the Commonwealth?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is not actually a Bill yet; we are discussing only the allocation of time. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s point will be relevant.

[John Hemming]

In terms of the allocation of time, the Bill is being issued around the Commonwealth and it therefore needs extra time so that the House of Commons can do its job and make sure that it is not a value burger of a Bill that has not been properly DNA tested.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

John Hemming Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

It is pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), the former Home Secretary, and the House will give due weight to his considered contribution. This Bill is clearly important. The world outside might not have realised that it is in three parts: the third is the ancillary part and is very small, the first appears almost to have consensus on both sides of the House, and the second is clearly still controversial.

Let me first say a word about part 1. Ever since I have been in this place, I have felt that it was right that the responsibility for intelligence and security matters should transfer from the Prime Minister to Parliament. It has been a gradual, careful and considered process, but it is right that we have now done that as all three major parties made a commitment that it should happen. I pay tribute to the current Committee and its predecessors, but it is clearly right that people elected by the people should hold our security and intelligence services to account. With some small further changes that colleagues have debated, we will be on the right track and I anticipate that the newly reconstituted Committee will soon be doing a very important job. I pay tribute to all colleagues who are members of the Committee.

That leaves part 2, which is about the hugely important issue of how we deal with civil cases—I repeat, civil cases—in which there are intelligence issues that cannot easily be shared with the watching world. I say civil cases, but there is one question that was not entirely answered by my very good and noble Friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who spoke for the Liberal Democrats and the Government in the House of Lords, when he was asked about the application of habeas corpus, which is not necessarily a civil case in the full sense. He was not entirely clear whether closed material proceedings could apply in a habeas corpus application, and that will need to be specifically addressed as we have to know exactly where we stand as we deal with the Bill.

When the first proposals were published in the Green Paper, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I were extremely nervous about them. We were concerned that they gave far too much power to the state and far too little power to the courts, and that they crossed the line between the open courts we have always accepted as the right principle and courts with a restricted process. The former Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, the Minister without Portfolio, fairly said that the Government wanted to consult and they did, and they have listened to the responses to the Green Paper. There is an argument that there could have been a White Paper, but that is not a central argument for today. It is particularly helpful that not only at the beginning, but by the time the Bill came to the Lords, some changes had already been made. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues had argued for these changes and set out what, for us, were the bottom lines. In April that was made clear. One of them was that we should restrict the scope of the Bill to national security cases only: done. The second was that we should remove inquests: done, although I hear what the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) said. There is an inquest question and I do not want to be dismissive of that. The third was ensuring that closed material proceedings were triggered by an application to a judge, not by a decision by Ministers.

Those steps represented good progress. The Bill then went to the Lords, where it was the subject of long deliberation. It was also examined by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) who served on the Committee for almost its entire work on the Bill. I declare an interest: I joined the Committee at the very end of its proceedings on the Bill. Effectively the work had been done. There was unanimity on the Committee as to the changes that should be made.

I welcome the fact that the recommendations made by the Joint Committee have almost entirely been picked up by the House of Lords on Report and supported by a majority in the Lords—in many cases, large majorities—against the Government. They have made the Bill a better Bill, with many of the safeguards that we want. I hope the Minister without Portfolio and his colleagues in the Home Office will accept the principle of all the amendments that have come to us from the Lords. The Joint Committee wants that to happen and I would urge that, as would my party colleagues.

In between those two things we debated the Bill at our Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton, and it got a resounding thumbs-down from my colleagues as going far too far across the line to closed courts from open courts. I understand that, and I am sensitive to it as I make my remaining comments this afternoon.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

With reference to our party conference, there are those who, like me, would perhaps see closed material proceedings limited to the quantum and the consideration of the quantum rather than the substantive issue. Perhaps that would be an alternative that would attract more support from the party.

[Simon Hughes]

That is a point of view, but I am not sure. I have not discussed it with my hon. Friend. The point of view of our colleagues was that we have to be very careful when we move away from open justice. We have to accept the evidence of those who say it is not necessary. The Joint Committee heard from the special advocates that it was not necessary. They did not support the proposal and we should give that due weight.

The central issue is what the procedure will be in order to protect the security interests on the one hand, but make sure that we deliver a fair outcome to a reasonable case on the other. The existing system, the public interest immunity system, means that Ministers declare documents secret and therefore they cannot be used. It is a very simple system, although it can be time consuming. I accept the argument that that often means that a case cannot be carried through to a conclusion, so I am not here to defend the idea that the PII system is the solution to all our difficulties.

Happily, the Bill is now drafted in such a way that consideration has to be given to that option first, and to whether, if certain documents are withheld, the trial can none the less proceed fairly. But if that is not the answer entirely, we have to consider whether there is something else. I want to flag up the changes that have been made and the ones that I think might get us nearer to what my party colleagues would like to see, as would many people who have written to us.

First, it is right that we should stick to the idea that the discretion is with the judge, not with Ministers of the state as an alternative. That is why the change referred to by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), that the judge “may” do things, rather than “must” do things, is the right change—small word but big implication in the context of clause 6. We have added the requirement to look at alternatives, such as the PII alternative. We have also added the requirement—a good one—that all parties to the proceedings can apply for closed material proceedings, or that could happen at the judge’s instigation, which is a good thing. We have also dealt with the inquests issue.

However, we have not dealt with the fundamentally important issue of how a defendant can see the evidence against them, and that is what gave the Joint Committee on Human Rights its biggest difficulty. The Committee made it absolutely clear in its report’s conclusions that, because we had not had the information that justified the case and had heard from the special advocates that they were not persuaded, even though the Government’s official reviewer said he was persuaded, the Committee was not persuaded either. That is set out in paragraphs 44 to 46. There was uncertainly about how many cases we were talking about. Paragraph 42 states:

“In the light of the lack of clarity about whether the number of pending claims is 27, 15, 6 or 3, and in the light of the Independent Reviewer’s evidence we wrote to the Minister in charge of the Bill on 23 October to ask how many civil damages claims were currently pending”.

Just after the Committee wrote the report, the Advocate-General for Scotland, my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, replied to that:

“I can confirm that as of 31 October 2012, there are 20 such live civil damages claims (including those stayed and at pre-action stage). There are also a number of other live cases, including judicial review challenges.”

He went on to elaborate the detail of that figure. I think we have to accept that that is roughly the number of cases we are talking about, but some of them are very significant cases and cannot be dismissed.

We must therefore take seriously the challenge that the Government have brought us. My honest view is that we have to allow the defence better access to the information, either through special advocates or by another means. It is on the new word that has only recently come into our language—“gisting”, which means allowing the defence to see not every iota of evidence, but the gist of it—that we need to do the most work in Committee. I think that there must be a mandatory requirement that the information be given in summary to the defence and that the defence—they can be specially cleared defendant advocates or representatives—can see the evidence, respond and take instructions on it. If we are going to say that we will allow the courts to go into closed session, it seems to me that we need the security of knowing that the defendant will have the right to know the case against them and the right to challenge. I hope that the Committee will do some detailed work on that over the coming weeks.

I agree that we need to deal with the Norwich Pharmacal situation, because at the moment we are precluded from using intelligence from abroad because of the court’s overriding power to have that put into the public domain. That has to be dealt with, because it is clearly unsatisfactory. I agree that we need to have a reporting and reviewing process and allow the media to make representations, as recommended by the Joint Committee.

I have two final points. First, we must ensure the judicial balance of national security against the public interest takes place in the second stage of the closed material proceedings process, not just at the gateway. Secondly, we have to consider whether we can just sign off this legislation forever or whether we have to come back to it in a certain number of years. This is very unusual territory for us. Civil liberties are at risk. We have made progress, but we are not there yet.

Leveson Inquiry

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Why do we need legislation, ministerial involvement through Ofcom and implicit licensing for news printed on dead trees, but not for news displayed on computer screens?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Lord Justice Leveson said this afternoon that he thinks there is something qualitatively different about the impact of news printed in our newspapers than there is in the great ecosystem of digital news and news on the internet. He is not making any claims that one form of regulatory remedy is applicable to other media; he is explicitly dealing with abuses in the newspaper industry. To say that because it does not apply to others we should therefore do nothing is a curious way of making the best the enemy of the good.

Leveson Inquiry

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s points. My reading of this is that what is being recommended is to stop some of the exemptions from data protection that journalists currently have but to put in place a public interest defence at the end. I am advised that that could have a very bad effect on investigative journalism. Again, I think that, instead of just waving through what could be a very profound change, it is worth stopping, talking and having cross-party discussions about this. That is why I do not think anyone, by rights, really can stand up today and say, “I accept the Leveson inquiry in full.” They would not be doing their duty as legislators and as politicians if they did not actually have a look at what this means.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Does the Prime Minister think that the Leader of the Opposition, in his enthusiasm for putting the Government in a strong position in respect of the regulator, forgot to call for the renaming of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as the ministry of truth?

[The Prime Minister]

Well, we certainly have got a long way to the truth about the DCMS in this report, and I hope that colleagues will look at that very closely.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hemming Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman speaks on behalf of us all when he says we should pause and reflect on the terrible suffering of those who now have to re-live, 25 years later, all the memories of that terrible atrocity and those who were killed, injured or maimed. I know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be attending the anniversary event. This is an extremely difficult week for all who suffered at that time and have had to live with those memories ever since; and, yes, of course I can confirm that where there are new leads or new evidence, they will be pursued rigorously, and we will provide all support to ensure that that is the case.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Under the previous Government, officials used discretion to refuse to provide to people who were brought up in care information about their cases. Will the Deputy Prime Minister look to open the files so that people who were brought up in care can find out what happened to them?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I certainly think my hon. Friend is right in saying that, given the daily drip, drip effect of these horrific revelations—which seem to get worse every day—about things that seem to have taken place on a scale that was before now unimaginable, we should send out a clear message from all parts of this House to any victim who is sitting at home alone, still harbouring terrible memories of the terrible suffering they endured, that this is the time for them to speak out. This is the time for them to come forward. We will help them; we will reach out to them. We will make sure that their suffering is atoned for and that where we can find those who perpetrated these terrible abuses, they are brought to justice, even several years since those events might first have occurred.

Backbench Business Committee

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Natascha Engel]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is important that Back Benchers participate in this review of the Backbench Business Committee, because it is their forum to amend, adjust and use as they see fit. The best way of doing so is by participating in the review that is taking place under the auspices of the Procedure Committee.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I echo the thanks of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) for the hon. Lady’s excellent work in chairing the Committee, on which I sit. I also sit on the Procedure Committee.

The Wright Committee report suggested that there was a role for parliamentary inquiries which could be created through motions tabled by the Backbench Business Committee. This has not happened so far, and in areas such as the reliability of evidence in family courts, it needs to be done. Have there been any discussions with Officers about how best the procedure may operate to do that?

[Natascha Engel]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman use the opportunity of the Procedure Committee’s investigating the operation of the Backbench Business Committee, because this is exactly the sort of thing the former could consider.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Wright Committee, which first suggested and recommended establishing a Backbench Business Committee. You served on that Committee, Mr Brady, as did the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire. The Wright Committee’s setting up the Backbench Business Committee, which we voted on at the start of this Parliament, has led to one of the most significant cultural shifts in the way this place works—one that was pretty unimaginable, even in the Wright Committee. The new intake from 2010, which has grown up with the Backbench Business Committee, has made it their own.

Public Disorder

John Hemming Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

In the end, the deployment and the numbers are an issue for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and that is a question that he will have to answer. It was a different situation Sunday night to Monday night to Tuesday night. We must look at that in finding the answer. The point that I was making is that it is possible to surge. The police demonstrated that that was possible, but we needed to surge more quickly.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

The Prime Minister shares my concern about the children on the streets and the importance of parental responsibility and parental discipline. Does he share my concern that certain parents say that the public institutions from time to time undermine parental authority, and that that issue needs to be looked at as well?

Public Confidence in the Media and Police

John Hemming Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Obviously, I will have to truncate my speech greatly. We recognise that there has been a cover-up going on, and we have to look at whether it is too easy in this country to cover things up. I want to consider a couple of other examples of cover-ups, and then look at how the rules for judicial review could be changed. I will try to get it done quickly, so that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) can speak.

Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board employs Dr Paul Flynn, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist. From 2002 to 2005, he performed over 100 operations on cancer patients against national guidelines. Concerns about Dr Flynn had been passed since 2003 to Dr John Calvert, the medical director who had hired him. However, Dr Flynn was only prevented from treating cancer patients in May 2005, after six surgeons complained directly about his poor respect of tissues, questionable knowledge of anatomy, lack of appreciation of what is on X-rays, and lack of a realistic surgical approach to cancer.

That is very much like the situation with the News of the World: there is a very serious problem and the management’s response, rather than to put their hands up, is to go for a cover-up. Rather than tell patients that they had been operated on by an untrained surgeon, the trust spent over £375,000—the equivalent of 20 nurses’ salaries—on gagging the original whistleblower, Dr Ihab Korashi, who was threatening to contact patients and expose what is a cover-up. Unlike the News International case, in this instance the court hearings were held in secret and held no fear for those who wished to keep the truth from public view.

Dr Korashi had reported his concerns to South Wales police—so we have a similar problem with the police—and the regulator, but the police ignored CPS advice that officers should pursue further lines of inquiry. The sad situation is that his wife, Dr Toulan, who was also a gynaecologist and suffered from cancer, wrote to the trust’s chief executive in March urging them to tell patients and relatives “the truth”. The response of the trust’s lawyers was remarkable. They said that patients would not be informed and served Dr Toulan, while she was in hospital, with an injunction, warning that she could go to prison if it was broken. She died from cancer 10 days ago.

What we have here is an example of a cover-up, and we need to change the rules so that ordinary people can challenge the state and successful companies. News International could have got away with all this if somebody had not taken the chance of taking it to civil proceedings. There are big cost risks associated with that. We also need to review the costs rules, particularly at the permission stage for judicial review, so that people can challenge public authorities without taking major risks.

I will now sit down, so that the hon. Member for Stourbridge can speak.