Assisted Dying

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for her introduction to the debate.

When Frank Field spoke in one of the first major debates on euthanasia, he told the story of how Barbara Wootton, who founded the national assistance scheme, made him promise that were she in hospital with a terminal condition, he would empty her medicine cabinet and bring her all the things that together would make a poison so that she could end her own life. She lived perfectly conscious in hospital for six months and never did that.

On 22 October 2021, Frank Field had just come out of a hospice and was reported as saying that he had changed his mind: in the past he had been against euthanasia, assisted dying or medical assistance in death—however one wants to call it. He said that two-and-a-half years ago. When I saw him over the last months, he did not raise the issue at all, so I think people can understand that people’s views are not always as intense as they sometimes appear.

I am a great fan of Dame Esther and collaborated with her—at least, she manipulated me when I was a Minister in 1986, when we were campaigning for a really good policy on child restraints in cars. Were she to put the case for better hospice care, she would do it with the same verve that we have heard her speak with on the broadcasters in the last few days. I would like to go on and debate with her, if she were willing. I would ask how many people the campaigners thought would qualify under the kind of terms suggested in this petition.

There are about 5,000 to 6,000 suicides a year in this country. Do people think we are talking about 100 people a year extra or 1,000? I put it to the people here that if we had a Dutch level of medical assistance in death, we would add 15,000 deaths a year—we would treble the number of existing suicides and, including the existing figure, take it up to four times.

People talk about the safeguards and conditions. There is a list of all the conditions and safeguards that other countries are taking away. It starts with, say, the people who cannot afford to go to Dignitas and expands to those who are depressed. All MPs and their staff know what it is like to try to help somebody who rings up or writes and says, “I’m going to do away with myself because of the condition I am in”, or says they will because of how they feel. We do not say, “We are in Westminster Hall debating making it easier for you to carry that out.” We say, “Can we talk? Can we pass you on to somebody else you can talk to? This help might make your life different and changed.”

I am at the sort of age that means that I am an orphan—my parents have died. My father died aged 93. After he came out of hospital having been badly shot up in the war, he did not spend another night in hospital for the rest of his life. He knew that he was dying. He had stopped eating and drinking. A few hours before he died he came out of unconsciousness and said, “Am I still alive?” When he was told yes, he said, “I’m so sorry”, and went back to sleep. He then died.

My mother died three days after a diagnosis. She had had the benefit of a wrong diagnosis six months before, so she lived her last six months happy rather than being mucked about in hospital. When she was told she would be dead within three days, she said, “Can we talk about the funeral?” My father said to my wife, “Look, Virginia, you are the Health Secretary—you are rather busy. Which day is convenient for you?” This was said in front of my mother—a perfectly normal conversation. I think conversations about death are ones we ought to have.

I conclude by telling the story of a member of my family who died last week. The hour-by-hour reports from those sitting with her in the care home, which had a hospice end-of-life service, and from those in my family would make a lot of people think twice before charging down a route that could lead to an increase in the number of suicides in this country by three times.

Security of Elected Representatives

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

It has been an honour to listen both to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and my right hon. Friend the Minister. I stand with three shields behind me: one for Airey Neave, assassinated in 1979; one for Robert Bradford, killed in his constituency surgery; and one for Ian Gow, who was blown up a week after the IRA killed Sister Catherine Dunne, a Roman Catholic Sister of Mercy, by mistake, and they thought, rightly, that by killing Ian Gow they would wipe that atrocity off the news. There are also other shields behind the Speaker’s Chair.

On average, one MP is killed every seven years. We are not the only ones exposed to risk; there is also the psychiatric social worker, the emergency blue-light responder, people fishing at sea, those working in a permanent way on the railways, and the like—so we should not think that we are the only people who need to have our safety looked at.

I hope the police will understand that those who need the most protection should get the most protection, and those of us who are not at much risk should not get too much money or attention given to us. There should be a risk-based analysis, so more is given to those who often speak up bravely, or those who, often because they are women or from ethnic minorities, get more attention from the thugs and extremists than is given to someone like me. Our constituents will understand, too, that candidates standing for election with us, who get the same attention as us, should get the same kind of protection as us.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the Father of the House for his kind words. He is absolutely right. I remember hearing as a child about the murder of Airey Neave, and it marked me then, and it marks me now, that somebody with such a record of service to our country during the second world war, when he escaped from Colditz, and who shaped one of our great political parties, had their life ended by the brutality and violence of a small group of murderous individuals whose agenda was not even shared by the majority in their own community, let alone the majority in the country. That is one of the most striking examples of anti-democratic forces in our country winning; they silenced a hero who had served our country for many decades. I appreciate very much my hon. Friend’s comments.

I hope right hon. and hon. Members will forgive me, but I will not go into the details of for whom and how security allocations will be made. If Members require a private briefing on how that is achieved, I am sure that I can arrange something, but the reality is that we will focus on those most at risk, to ensure that those who have credible threats against them are supported. My hon. Friend the Father of the House highlighted sad cases. A colleague of ours who has a seat in this House— I hope she will be returned at the next election—has to wear a stab vest to constituency surgeries. She is threatened by a nationalist movement in her seat. Supporters of hers have been silenced by threats of violence and intimidation. She rightly raised with me this morning the issue of hustings; her opponents will call her any number of names if she fails to attend them. The reality is that the threats against her are credible and real. We are working with the police to make sure that they are mitigated, so that she can carry out her responsibilities, not just to herself, but to constituents who may or may not wish to send her here. We must give them the chance to choose, and not allow a few threatening individuals to prevent her electors having that choice.

Protest Measures

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who has just put a question to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Security.

Some demonstrations are perfectly acceptable. For example, in my early years as an MP, in order to get a relief road, I escorted mothers and their prams down a major road. We went at three and a half miles an hour, which was faster than the traffic would have gone had we not been there on a demo. It was a Friday evening and people were trying to leave London. We got the relief road.

I also led a march from Speakers’ Corner to Trafalgar Square for the Cambridge Two—two social workers who were wrongly convicted and jailed for helping the homeless.

That is different from the kind of disaster that happens when there are crowd surges, especially if they are created by explosions, be they from firecrackers or other things. I was present at Óscar Romero’s funeral, when 14 people died around me from crushing because explosives or fireworks went off.

I was present at the Heysel stadium in 1985 when 39 Italians were crushed to death. Being able to control demonstrations, which should be held by agreement and understanding with the authorities, is vital for them to be safe.

On a more minor scale, there was a flash protest outside my constituency office yesterday by good-natured people who care about the people in Gaza. Had there been one young worker in that place when suddenly a flashmob appeared around them, it would have been discomfiting. I am sure that that would not be caught by these measures, and nor should it be, but I say to those doing such protests: “Think of others.”

I ask my right hon. Friend to remember a last point about disruption. When there was one of the Just Stop Oil or Extinction Rebellion demonstrations, in which people were allowed to sit around in the streets here—for far too long in my view—I said to one person who had flown in from Vancouver to join the protest that flying halfway across a continent and an ocean to help Extinction Rebellion was odd. I said, “What about the ambulances?” They said, “We’ll let them through.” I replied, “The ambulances are stuck 2 miles away. You can’t let them through. You must let people go about their ordinary business to save lives and for the prosperity of the country.”

I back the Government’s measures, and I hope my right hon. Friend knows that he will have support from across the House and the country for what he has proposed.

[Tom Tugendhat]

First, I thank the Father of the House for his support for these important measures, and indeed for his entirely correct observation that protest is not only necessary but important across the country. Every day, many protests happen politely, courteously and in ways that make their point without causing the kind of societal harms that, sadly, some cause. His longevity in this place, and indeed outside it, is a blessing to the House. He remembers the funeral of the late St Óscar Romero, whose extraordinary work was an inspiration to millions around the world. My hon. Friend reminds us not only that crying “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is not an expression of freedom of speech, but that, in this context, making an explosion in a crowded area can lead to human tragedy beyond expectation. The co-operation between protesters and the police is incredibly important for the protection of the public.

Migration

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

If the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) does not mind, I will not go too far down his line, except to say that if that is his appeal at the next general election, SNP Members are more likely to get the 37% of the vote that they got in 2017 rather than the percentage that they think they might get if they had everything their own way.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for proposing this debate, and I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton).

It is worth remembering that the population of London 11,000 years ago was nothing. People migrated to London after the end of the Little Ice Age. If most of us look back through our family histories, or the family histories of those our families married into, we will find a great deal of mixture. I know that when some of my grandchildren were at school in California, there was an incredible mix of people in their classes.

A few days ago, Mr Speaker gave a reception in Speaker’s House for Multicultural Falklands. In the last census in the Falkland Islands, there was a population of 3,662, with 68 nationalities—from A for Australia to Z for Zimbabwe. If I may say so, I pay particular tribute to Zimbabweans who helped in the mine clearing and who obeyed the normal Falkland Islands rule that if a person lives there for more than 20 months, they will want to stay there and go on living there.

In 2005, in issue 3, volume 38, of the International Migration Review, which is linked to the Centre for Migration Studies, there is an article about the factors that make and unmake migration policies. In summary, migration policies often fail to achieve their declared objectives or have unintended consequences—well, that is a big surprise. It suggests that there are three reasons: the social dynamics of the migration process; factors linked to globalisation and transnationalism; and political systems.

I was reminded by somebody whom I met just before lunch today, who had been on a course run by the Royal College of Defence Studies in Belgrave Square, that 10 or so years ago, when they were having discussions about what the major issues would be over the next two or three decades, it was decided that it was going to be migration from Africa, where there are many unstable states, where climate change is making a difference and where there is not an ordinary flexible political or economic system. We all know that flexible economic systems lead to a growth in prosperity, as has been shown in many countries around the world. Where that is denied and there is high-level persistent civil war, people want to move out. Our ancestors did; we would.

However, that is not to say that we can just forget about migration. If there is uncontrolled migration against the policies of a country, there is unrest and uproar. This is one of the very few countries where, in a democratically elected Parliament, there are no extremists—whether from the left or the right. Some would put that down in part to our parliamentary system; others would put it down to other factors. I think that it is because, over the past 50 years or so, our migration and immigration policies have been debated fiercely.

There have been great arguments ever since James Callaghan, who was Home Secretary in the late 1960s, started putting controls on British passport holders from east Africa, even though, five years later, the Government—Robert Carr in particular and Edward Heath—rightly decided to admit the Ugandan Asians. I was honoured to be at Buckingham Palace when the King, in his first big public occasion, had a celebration service for the 50th anniversary of the Ugandan Asians coming here. We stood up and did what was right. We are doing the same thing with the people from Hong Kong, from Syria and from Ukraine.

My grandmother was a host to some White Russians after the great war. My parents had a Hungarian refugee in the 1950s, pushing one of the children out of their room. My wife and I had Ugandan Asians and Zimbabwean refugees. There are people who are prepared to do their bit.

That is not to say that there is uncontrolled immigration, although I do warn visitors I take round the Palace of Westminster that the memorial to the Kindertransport process was something that people are proud of now, but that many opposed at the time.

Then there is the question: why only 10,000 children? What about their parents and the like? Some of those questions are unanswerable in a seven-minute contribution, but I would say that a Government—whether this Government or any alternative Government—who expect to get attention from both sides of the House should try to have policies that are not only likely to be fair and effective and that have a degree of humanity, but that recognise that a country such as this cannot accept very large numbers of people coming outside the rules. Inside the rules is one thing; outside the rules is another. That is why my right hon. Friend the Immigration Minister has not had detailed criticism from me on what he is trying to achieve. We know that what he is trying to do is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsten Oswald]

The Minister shakes his head. What a shameful way to behave. I am trying to assist people in grave need and this says everything about the UK Government’s approach to migration. It should not be like this, Minister. Migration and migrants can bring a positive benefit to our communities and people who are in the gravest peril deserve a good deal more support and respect. It is not just me and the Scottish National party saying that. Opinium polled a large number of UK adults on the Illegal Migration Bill and the people it spoke to felt that the way people seeking asylum are described in political debate is “overly negative”. I thought that was interesting because that is not what someone would believe if they stood in the Chamber and listened to the UK Government.

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kirsten Oswald]

I am going to continue, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, as time is limited. We all see the impact of migration policies. There are labour shortages and skills shortages, and Scottish need is certainly not taken into account by the UK Government. Whether it is the kind of cases I talked about, floating internment camps, boat pushbacks, deportation flights or the circumventing of international law, the depths that this Government will sink to on migration are frankly depressing. They are hostile in every way. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North put that well.

The Prime Minister has had his say, too. He said:

“If you are coming here illegally, claiming sanctuary from death, torture or persecution”.

That is Orwellian doublespeak because international law determines that, if someone is fleeing death, torture or persecution, they are seeking refuge legally. Nobody is illegal. It is not only confusing in that way. The Home Office’s own logic is not logical. It said:

“Alternative accommodation options”—

that is how it puts things—

“including barges, will save the British taxpayer money.”

But the very same Home Office is set to spend up to £6 billion over two years on detention facilities and ongoing accommodation and removal costs, and Treasury insiders say that the deterrent effect has not been reliably modelled, meaning that the numbers are likely to be wrong and costs much greater. The Refugee Council correctly says that barges are

“entirely unsuitable for the needs”

of those seeking refuge and are a

“direct consequence of the chronic delays and huge backlog in the asylum system”.

Not only that, but a third of the UK’s international aid budget is actually being spent on domestic asylum costs. The system is not working because it is underpinned by policies that are simply wrong.

The Illegal Migration Bill has been widely condemned across civil and political society. A coalition of 176 civil society organisations is calling on the UK Government to immediately withdraw it because it potentially breaches multiple international conventions and agreements. That is on top of the fact that UK family reunion rules are already among the most restrictive in Europe. The Dubs scheme for refugee children was prematurely closed. Brexit—that elephant in the room that neither the Conservative Government nor the Labour Opposition want to talk about—means that Dublin family reunion applications are no longer possible. My constituents really care about this. I hear a lot from constituents who are deeply worried about why we are not showing compassion for children who seek to come here for sanctuary, and why we are turning our back and turning our face away. I understand their concerns, and I agree with them. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is “profoundly concerned” about the direction of travel, saying that it

“would amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the UK for people who arrive irregularly, no matter how compelling their claim”.

The chief executive of the Refugee Council is also concerned.

I spoke to the ladies from the VOICES Network whom the British Red Cross hosted here yesterday, and the main thing they want is a safe place to live for women seeking asylum. It does not seem like very much, does it? They are just looking to be treated with a bit of dignity, and the SNP wants to see migrants being given that dignity. We want them to have the right to work and to contribute to the society they call home, but they have no right to work here and no access to social security support in too many cases. The right to work, as article 23 of the universal declaration of human rights tells us, is a fundamental right, not that you would believe that here. People can apply for the right to work only after they have been waiting for more than one year, and even then very few are granted permission. People are essentially banned from working. Not only is that very unfortunate and difficult for them, but it is very unfortunate and difficult for us, as we miss out on the skills and talents that they bring with them.

The UK is an outlier. Other countries do not deal with things this way. Imagine the benefit to our NHS of allowing doctors trained elsewhere to come here and to work to look after the people here who need it. We are also completely opposed to the “no recourse to public funds” policies, which are blocking migrant groups from essential safety nets. Migrants, who are already likely to be vulnerable and in low-paid and insecure work, are therefore disproportionately likely to be at risk of destitution.

Then there are the unaccompanied children. Over 4,000 have been placed in hotels since 2021, and 200 children remain missing. That is shocking; it is inconceivable. The UK Government clearly cannot be trusted as a corporate parent, and the Scottish Government are deeply concerned about this. Scotland does take its responsibilities seriously. The Scottish Government want no part of the UK Government’s “hostile environment” approach to refugees and asylum seekers, or people who are among the most vulnerable in the world—[Laughter.] I do not know why the Minister finds this funny, because I do not think it is funny at all.

Net Migration Figures

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am sorry that, while my right hon. Friend was replying to those questions, four of the Labour Front Benchers were talking at the same time. I think that was to disguise the fact that their spokesperson appeared to agree with virtually every sensible element of the Government’s immigration control policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me about this? Beyond the admission order office, there is the memorial plaque for the Kindertransport. Some of those who feel most strongly against immigration now feel proud of what we did then. We have to remember that there were then and there are now tens of millions of people around the world suffering because of violence in their own countries, and there are others with bad Governments who stop them having economic success where they are. Can I say that, as well as having a good immigration policy, we ought to do all we can around the world to have better governance and a flexible economic system, so that people can be happy living where they are, not feeling that they have to come here for refuge?

[Robert Jenrick]

I strongly agree with the Father of the House. We have made two very significant interventions in the last two years. The first was to provide sanctuary here in the United Kingdom for Hong Kong BNOs, to whom we have a moral and historical obligation, to enable them to escape creeping authoritarianism in Hong Kong and make a new life here in the UK. We are proud of that, and I expect that, in the years to come, that scheme will be looked back on as a great success for this country. Secondly, the Ukraine schemes have now led to 200,000 Ukrainians coming to the UK and seeking sanctuary here, with hundreds of thousands of British people opening up their homes to support them. Those were great schemes.

We want to ensure schemes such as those can continue, and that the UK can be an even greater force for good in the world. That does not mean, however, that we should go slow on further measures to bring down net migration, because net migration does place very significant burdens on communities in respect of housing, public services and our ability to integrate people. That is why we made further interventions this week, and we will consider further ones in the future.

Metropolitan Police: Casey Review

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Everyone in the House will back up what the Home Secretary, Baroness Casey and the shadow Home Secretary have said about our reliance on the police and our support for them, but there are times when we have to look at how often the police, the police authority, the Mayor and the Home Secretary have not put things right.

I will give as an example the high-profile case of the Sikh police officer Gurpal Virdi, who 25 years ago was in effect accused of doing something he had not done. We had the Muir report at the end of 2001, which showed what the police ought to do to do things right. We had the report by Sir William Morris, as he then was, in 2004. Before that we had had the Stephen Lawrence inquiry by Sir William Macpherson, advised by the former police officer Tom Cook, by the human rights expert Dr Richard Stone and by John Sentamu, who later became the Archbishop of York. What they recommended has not happened.

Now we have the Casey report. I say to the commissioner of the Met police, to the Mayor and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary: have a review into what happened in the Gurpal Virdi case, including his prosecution eight years ago for a non-offence, where the only evidence exonerated him. Until that is done, people will not have confidence in people putting things right. It may be one case, and many other examples will be given in the next few minutes, but Sergeant Gurpal Virdi has been the victim of more injustice from the police, over decades, than I have ever seen in my life.

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the devastating stories of misconduct, inappropriate behaviour, discrimination and poor standards. No one is denying that. Baroness Casey’s review is unequivocal about the failings, cultural and more widespread, within the Met. It is right now that we need to see real change. The Met commissioner has put in place a plan. He is already working and making progress on increasing standards, improving behaviour and ridding the force of those who do not deserve to wear the badge. We should all get behind him in that objective.

Independent Cultural Review of London Fire Brigade

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I assure the hon. Lady that there is not any complacency. She should be aware—I am sure she is—of the White Paper published just a few months ago setting out a range of measures to tackle shocking cultural issues such as those we have heard discussed this afternoon.

The hon. Lady asked about national standards. As I said in my opening comments, the Fire Standards Board is in the process of publishing a number of standards that will be publicly available and that we will expect fire services to abide by. Those, of course, will be inspected against. She asked about issues outside the London Fire Brigade. I agree that those need attention, and we will be discussing with His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services what work it can do to look at behavioural and cultural issues such as these across the whole country.

Obviously, we will respond to the White Paper consultation shortly. In the meantime, we will of course be working with Commissioner Andy Roe, who I spoke to on Friday, about the issue. As the report relates to London, I will also be in touch with the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who of course has responsibility for oversight of the London Fire Brigade.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

May I remind the Minister that the Mayor, the Greater London Assembly and the fire services inspectorate ought to have known and done things about this situation years and years ago? Were all these incidents unknown to them? If they were reported, what did they do about them?

Through the Minister, I say to those looking after our great services in London and around the country that they need to be able to answer this question: when will the colour of someone’s skin be as important but no more than the colour of their eyes or hair?

[Chris Philp]

I completely agree with the Father of the House’s last comment about the importance of complete equality, whether based on gender, ethnicity or anything else. Everybody should be treated equally and everybody should have exactly the same opportunity. In relation to the work of the inspectorate, one of the reasons the consultation was published a few months ago was in response to concerns previously raised. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has oversight responsibility for the London Fire Brigade, as my hon. Friend pointed out, and I will raise these issues with him as well.

Police Service: HMI Report

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

Most serving and retired police officers will feel as aggrieved as everybody else that a small number have been allowed to get away with bad things for too long.

For seven years in this House, working directly with Ministers and the Metropolitan police, I have been pursuing the case of the injustice to Sergeant Gurpal Virdi. I do not expect the Minister to know it, but does he understand that confidence can be restored only when lessons are learned, and that this is a good case to look at?

After reading the book, “Behind the Blue Line”, may I recommend that Home Office and Justice Ministers meet me with Gurpal Virdi, Matt Foot, his solicitor, the Crime Prosecution Service and the Independent Office for Police Conduct to review what went wrong, what should be put right and how the matter will be reviewed?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the Father of the House for his question. I do agree that the vast majority of police officers, who are hard-working, brave and decent people, will share this House’s shock at the contents of the report. We should keep it in mind, as I say, that the vast majority of police are hard-working, brave and decent people. In relation to the case that he raised, if he is able to write to me with particulars, I would be very happy to look further into it and meet him.

Police Conduct and Complaints

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I can see that Sir Peter Bottomley has joined us—do you wish to contribute, Sir Peter?

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Thank you. I call the shadow Minister, Naz Shah.

Windrush Day 2021

Peter Bottomley Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on her introduction to this debate, and I hope that the Government will follow up her suggestion and see whether it is possible to retrieve the anchor from HMT Windrush off the coast of Libya. The history of the ship is interesting, but in six minutes I should probably not divert my remarks to that.

The article I was reading before coming to the Chamber is in The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, vol. 60, no. 2, June 2021, page 251. It is by Anthony Quinn, Nick Hardwick and Rosie Meek, and its rather long title is, “With Age Comes Respect? And for Whom Exactly? A Quantitative Examination of White and BAME Prisoner Experiences of Respect Elicited through HM Inspectorate of Prisons Survey Responses.” It is a serious analysis of the information available. It does not condemn people, but it shows that the experiences of those who are black or minority ethnic are different at all ages in our prisons. I look forward to the time when that is not so.

The overall question I put to myself is this: will I live long enough to know when the colour of my skin will be as important, but no more, than the colour of my eyes or my hair? I count a number of retired bishops among my friends, and I know of eight times that bishops or archbishops have been stopped by the police. Every single one of those times it was John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York. He is now in the other place in his own right, rather than as an ecclesiastical bishop. We must answer our own question: is he the most curious driver there has been on the ecclesiastical Bench over the past 20 years, or does some degree of discrimination still apply to those driving while black?

I have spent a lot of time helping black police officers and doctors—or Asian; I am talking about people who are non-white rather than just black or Caribbean—and all the times I have taken up cases for black or Asian people, I found that they were treated by their employers, by employment tribunals, by the General Medical Council, and at one stage by the Information Commissioner’s Office, in ways that I regarded as inappropriate.

One good woman doctor was looking after diabetes patients. She was concerned about South Asian women being those least likely to come to advice centres. She wanted to set up a self-help project with them, supported by the trust. She sent their details to herself at another NHS address, and then got put in front of the GMC and the ICO for sharing patients’ details. She was doing what is now common practice, but 10 or 15 years ago it took the Information Commissioner’s Office a year to discover that she could not have committed an offence, and it took the GMC about the same amount of time. Her trust has never been held to account for the appalling way she was treated. I could go on about Dr Bawa-Garba, the paediatric doctor who was left by herself, and left to swing by the GMC and the courts, until people came together—white and black—to say, “This is unfair. Get it reviewed.” The case was reviewed, and her prosecution ended.

I have previously mentioned in the House the case of the very good Sikh sergeant, now retired, Gurpal Virdi. He spent a week and a half on trial in the Crown court, having allegedly put a collapsible police truncheon up the bottom of a young man in the back of a police van 26 years before. The thing did not happen. The so-called police witness contradicted every statement of fact by the complainant. The complainant forgot that he had been arrested by Gurpal six months later, and another police officer in his company was never interviewed by the Directorate of Professional Standards of the Metropolitan police. When Gurpal complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the case was referred by the commissioner, Dame Cressida Dick—who, by the way, had been a sergeant with Gurpal Virdi in Battersea—to the Directorate of Professional Standards, which said that its own investigation had been all right.

Will the Minister get the Directorate of Professional Standards of the Metropolitan police together with the CPS and the Attorney General’s office, and ask how Gurpal Virdi got prosecuted? Why will they not have a Richard Henriques-type inquiry—even a brief one—to learn the lessons from something that should never have happened?

I grew up—more accurately, my children grew up—in Stockwell in a mixed area, among people, black and white together, in their scout groups, Brownies, schools and confirmation classes. They did well. Many of them did well, whether they were white or black. I ask that we learn the lessons from the people of the Windrush generation, and other parts of the world, who try to bring their children up in a way that means they learn, play, and have the same kind of development as that described by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) in his report. Give people chances, let them take them, and when we spot unfairness, do not leave it to the victims to sort things out, but decide that we should. If I am white, middle class, and in full-time employment—which I think I am; I cannot class myself as middle aged anymore—it is my responsibility. I hope to go on contributing to these debates until I can answer that question by saying that the colour of skin and place of origin do not matter in this country. It is merit; it is friendliness; and it is mutual support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Bottomley]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not look on this as an abuse, but I meant to ask the Minister whether, before the end of the debate or certainly afterwards, he would find the letter sent on 25 May this year at 1.41 pm to MHCLG correspondence by Arthur Torrington who, for 26 years, has run the Windrush Foundation. He has not had a reply. His essential point was to ask whether it was a good idea for the Windrush Foundation to be involved in Windrush Day events in the same way that the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust is involved in Holocaust Memorial Day. The Minister might not be able to respond directly, but I hope that he will respond to Arthur Torrington, who made a number of outstanding points which deserve answers. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.

[Mr Dhesi]

I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that his intervention placed that on the record. I sincerely hope that the Minister will acknowledge and cover it in his response.

We owe so much to the Windrush generation and their descendants. They contributed to business, medicine, engineering and science, teaching, nursing, politics, academia, the voluntary sector and the armed services. Who can imagine our public life here in Great Britain without the contributions of Stuart Hall, C. L. R. James, Tessa Sanderson, Zadie Smith, Kelly Holmes, Lenny Henry, Rio Ferdinand and the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), among so many others?

I mentioned the contribution of people of African-Caribbean heritage to our politics, and I want to mention one person in particular: Lydia Simmons, whom I mentioned in my maiden parliamentary speech here in the Chamber and whom I am so fond of, especially given the warmth with which she greets me. Lydia is something of a Slough legend. She was born in Montserrat, came to the UK, and did the sensible thing and joined the Labour party. She was elected to Slough council in 1979. She was a council cabinet member and served until 2007. Lydia Simmons has the honour of being the first black person and the first Afro-Caribbean woman to become a Mayor in England. She has rightly been recognised by Her Majesty the Queen with an OBE.

When we hear the name of Windrush, we reflect on 1,001 stories of fortitude, sacrifice, bravery and service. We give thanks for all those who built communities, served our nation and strengthened our bonds of kinship and friendship with islands across the oceans. However, when we hear the name of Windrush, we also hear different connotations. Instead of gratitude, we think of cruelty; instead of recognition, we think of injustice; instead of service, we think of scandal. The Windrush scandal is a terrible blight on our recent past.

Wendy Williams’s lessons learned review stands as a terrible indictment of the Government’s so-called “hostile environment”. Williams stated that the cruel impact was “foreseeable and avoidable”. The Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the EHRC, said that the Government ignored its duty to equality. Even after Ministers admitted their failings and mistakes, the Windrush compensation scheme is a disaster: of the 11,500 people the Home Office estimates are eligible for compensation, a mere 687 have received their due. Justice delayed is justice denied and, tragically, at least 21 people have died waiting for justice. The need is there and the money is there. What is missing is the political will and the basic efficiency to get the cash into the bank accounts of the people who deserve it.

When the Windrush generation arrived, they were frequently met with hostility and racism. They were denied a fair chance in housing, education and jobs. Those infamous signs in landladies’ windows were used to stoke up division and dire warnings of rivers of blood. Yet that generation proved the racists wrong. They added immeasurably to our national story and continue to do so. They started out in the cities, towns and villages of faraway Caribbean islands, but they proved—through their intellect, determination and sweat—to be the best of British. We honour them today and in their names we demand long overdue racial justice and equality for all.