Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Debate between Philippa Whitford and Deidre Brock

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

We have always had a great deal of concern about the conduct of this Tory Government, who misled us through the pandemic from beginning to end, and at times it terrified us. We saw the photos of Boris Johnson surrounded by empty champagne bottles; we heard how the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), got his pandemic strategy from the “Contagion” movie; and we saw how the former Chancellor and current Prime Minister was on the receiving end of a fixed penalty fine over partygate. In fact, 100 of these fines were issued to officials and politicians at the heart of government, and investigations are not over yet. This was a culture of not just bending the rules, but shattering them. Yet, right until this moment, Members such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) were being thrown out of this place for pointing out that Boris Johnson lied and lied and lied about these incidents, all while the liar himself was protected by procedure.

The fifth report of the Privileges Committee is forensic in its approach and has revealed a culture of entitlement that has eroded the very foundations of that which passes for democracy at Westminster. It says:

“The overall thrust of Mr Johnson’s evidence to the Committee has been to downplay the significance and narrow the scope of the assertions he made to the House.”

It uses words such as “disingenuous” and “misleading”. It talks of Mr Johnson using language that was

“contrary to common English usage”

and of his

“advancing an unsustainable interpretation of Guidance”.

The report’s tone is flat, completely professional and absolutely damning.

The report has also shed more light on behaviour that proves without doubt that it really was one rule for them, another rule for us. Since its publication, we have seen some clips that reveal the unbelievable arrogance of those posing for photos and being filmed dancing at Tory HQ, apparently on a day when it was announced that London was entering tier 3 restrictions—and some of those taking part have then been rewarded with honours. People died alone while No. 10 officials had Friday wine time. The reason these people spent their final moments alone was that they were following the orders of a Government who disregarded their own policies so blatantly, with suitcases filled with booze and with office karaoke machines being ignored as they were wheeled in. And then Boris Johnson lied about it.

Paragraph 210 of the report is scathing. It states:

“There is no precedent for a Prime Minister having been found to have deliberately misled the House. He misled the House on an issue of the greatest importance to the House and to the public, and did so repeatedly.”

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the outpouring we have seen on social media of people sharing the pain of instances of a daughter lost to suicide, or of funerals of those close to them that they could not attend, shows that these scars are not going to disappear in people’s lifetimes? So is the demand to move on and the trivialisation of this matter not just the final insult?

[Deidre Brock]

I completely agree. The stories I have seen on social media and heard from constituents are utterly heartbreaking. The report vindicates every single person who made immense personal sacrifices during the pandemic. I am extremely grateful to the Committee and its officers for their work, particularly in such a hostile environment of relentless intimidation and insults.

One would like to think the Committee’s recommendations will ensure that such a monumental betrayal of public trust will never be undertaken so lightly again. However, Boris Johnson and his allies’ continued refusal to accept the findings and recommendations of the report is a further affront to the democratic process. In fact, the former Prime Minister’s relationship with the truth is so distorted, I am not sure whether he comprehends the depths of his own deception. Either that, or he still thinks he can play us all for fools. In that, at least, I would say the game is up.

We cannot risk reinforcing the message that those in positions of power can deny, dismiss and evade the consequences of their own actions. Instead, the House must now work to regain at least some of the trust it has already lost and safeguard the democratic process. To do otherwise would set an extremely dangerous precedent.

The report comes alongside the news that the Scottish Government have published plans for an independent Scotland to have a codified constitution, written by the people, for the people, and, crucially, holding our representatives accountable to the people. Not only would that constitution guarantee our human rights and an NHS free at the point of need, it would ensure that no Scottish Parliament would ever take so much time, during a cost of living crisis, figuring out how to discipline out-of-control politicians who like to push flimsy Westminster conventions to the absolute limit. I note that over the weekend Mr Johnson may have tested that again, by again breaching the ministerial code with the announcement of his latest side job.

This mess is also about a party that ignored the obvious failings of a man because it thought he could win it power. I have read that many Members on the Government Benches plan to abstain, terrified of those among their constituents who are, unfortunately, still taken in by the clown prince, the former Prime Minister, playing the buffoon for them. He has, of course, jumped ship and escaped the censure of the House, but we need to turn our gaze on all the Members on the Government Benches who ignored his track record and indulged his behaviour and the obvious failings of the man, simply because they thought he could win them their seats.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Philippa Whitford and Deidre Brock

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

I rise to speak to amendment 89 and a number of other amendments that appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I also support Plaid Cymru’s excellent amendment 9.

Scottish architects have raised concerns about the Bill imposing the much lower English building standards on Scotland. The Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland pointed out this week that Scotland’s standards have helped prevent tragedies like that at Grenfell. Peter Drummond of the RIAS said that

“it is simply inexplicable that the bill seeks to align the more robust Scottish regulations with the English system. Those powers are now to be removed. The lowest common denominator within the UK will apply. And that is, on any fair reading, a spectacularly poor step backwards.”

One would think that England would want to move towards the Scottish standards, but the Bill makes it clear that England’s Government seek to bring Scotland’s standards down rather than improve English standards. That poverty of ambition will haunt England for decades, but it should not be allowed to shackle the rest of us.

In areas of devolved responsibility, the Government in Whitehall are the English Government rather than the UK Government. The Bill, under the myth of removing barriers to trade, ignores that division and seeks to force Scotland—and, of course, Wales and Northern Ireland—into a lockstep Union of diminishing standards and lessening protections, with a Government determined to rip away what they would term red tape and the rest of us term sensible precautions.

The White Paper singled out various building standards as a supposed barrier to the smooth functioning of the market, in spite of decades of experience showing that to be utter nonsense. What about other standards? Will the minimum tolerable standard for living accommodation be lost? Will teaching qualification standards be removed?

In answer to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami), who is no longer in his place, I have had a number of WhatsApp messages since the earlier exchange and I am told that in England a teacher can be unqualified or can switch subjects. For example, a PE teacher can start to teach physics if there is a shortage. That is not the case in Scotland. Scottish teachers must have a degree in teaching or in the subject they are teaching, plus a postgraduate qualification. Again, that is not the case in England, as I understand it. Will free schools and academy schools be foisted on an unwilling Scottish populous? Will the power grab destroy Scotland’s consumer protections?

The exemptions in schedule 1 include water and sewerage, to be sure, but clause 10 allows the Secretary of State to amend those exemptions by secondary legislation. Is this the back door to privatising Scottish Water?

The Bill is a parade of threats to Scotland, not least among which is the threat to our food and drink industry. The Government will remove food protections. Animal welfare standards, environmental standards and protections against genetically modified crops are all in the firing line. Ministers will tell us that this is not so, but let me tell them that no one believes them. England’s Government will not protect English consumers, but they should not get in the way of Scottish Governments protecting Scottish consumers.

I have solutions. The first is the obvious one and by far the best: Scotland as an independent nation state making her own decisions, which will happen soon. The second is less direct but would have some effect: instead of reducing everything to the lowest common beast, as is proposed in the Bill, raise it instead to the highest standard. Our amendment 89 would do that. Where goods are traded across the borders of these nations, let them be traded at the highest standards. Scotland has banned flammable cladding on high-rise buildings and that should be respected. A ban on hormone-treated beef should be respected, and so on. Respect the higher standard and protect the consumer, the brand reputations, the businesses and the investment—protect jobs. The higher standard should be the goal, not the lower. I urge Members to adopt that principle and Ministers to consider it.

There are other problems with the Bill. Regulations will be made in Whitehall. Unlike the EU process, this will not be co-decision-making. EU competences are constrained by the need to achieve consensus among member states. This regime will be dictatorial: rule from the bunker, not the negotiating table. The mutual recognition clause is actually the Whitehall superiority clause.

Scots academics have given this Bill short shrift. Professor Michael Dougan has been quoted at length in this debate. Professor Michael Keating, professor of politics at Aberdeen University, points out that under the 1999 devolution settlement there was no hierarchy of laws; some were reserved to Westminster and the rest were devolved. Under this Bill, UK Ministers would have

“powers to regulate a…wide range of otherwise devolved matters in the name of the internal market”.

Professor Nicola McEwen of Edinburgh University makes it clear that rules made by the devolved Administrations will not apply to goods or service providers that satisfy less strict regulations in England. She says that

“unfettered market access is given priority. EU principles of proportionality and subsidiarity are…excluded.”

Also on the chopping block would be the right to differentiate production methods in procurement, so there goes organic farming—even if it survives the drop in exports after the Government’s failure to agree an equivalence with the EU. This is an absolute mess, and that is why amendment 89 is so important.

Do not drag us down; use the good example set by a neighbour to raise up your own standards. Let us have goods crossing the national borders of these islands meeting the highest standards, rather than the lowest. There has been much ado about the fact that the Bill will potentially breach international law. It is a matter of at least equal concern that it would change our constitutional arrangements without asking the people for approval in a referendum. Furthermore, the Bill would give Ministers the right further to amend the constitutional settlement without the bother of primary legislation. Some folk would call that a coup d’état. It represents the dismantling of the devolved settlements, the disempowerment of this Parliament and the centralisation of power in the hands of a very few Ministers. Surely that is the mark of a failed state.

In short, this Bill is a mess that would have been better off consigned to a skip, but if we are all going to have to suffer it—we in Scotland, hopefully, for the shortest time possible—at least let us pitch for the higher standard, rather than the lower.

[Dr Whitford]

I also rise to speak to amendment 89 and the other amendments listed in my name and the names of my colleagues.

Part 1 of the Bill introduces two key trade mechanisms within the UK for the first time: mutual recognition and non-discrimination. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) tries to make these sound benign, but that just shows his lack of ability to see what they look like from any of the devolved nations. Non-discrimination, which is covered in clauses 5 and 6, would affect labelling regarding the source of produce. It would therefore remove the ability for consumers to reduce their food miles or to support local producers if they choose to, and could be used to undermine or challenge protected geographical indicators or the Scottish brand—as in Scotch whisky and Scotch beef. Despite their long tradition and international recognition as Scottish products, we already see the promotion of British whisky and British haggis, of all things.

Clauses 2 and 3 cover mutual recognition, which creates a powerful deregulatory pressure, because if any UK nation has lower standards or regulations, the other three must just shut up and accept such goods. As England is the largest nation and economically the most powerful, it is assumed that its standards will dominate, particularly as the Secretary of State has the power to change the Bill on a whim if he wishes. Although clause 3(9) says that the Secretary of State “must consult” the devolved nations, I am afraid that the last four years have shown just how worthless and meaningless such a phrase is.

Clause 3(4) lists the aspects of a product that could come under mutual recognition, including its characteristics, performance standards, packaging and labelling, and certification.

There is even a catch-all line for

“anything not falling within paragraphs (a) to (f)”.

Basically, every single aspect of commercial goods could be challenged under this legislation.

The Government claim, as indeed do many on the Conservative Benches, that the Bill is needed to maintain trade throughout the UK, yet previously trade continued without any problems, despite the variations in the four nations’ regulations. All three devolved Governments have been working to agree common frameworks to ensure that there are no obstacles to trade but also that the devolved powers and different priorities of the four nations are respected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitford]

Absolutely. An amendment was tabled by one of their own Members—the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—to protect food standards in farming.

[Deidre Brock]

Does my hon. Friend share my amazement that not a single Scottish Tory has attended today’s debate, despite the impact that the proposals will have on the devolved nations and on Scotland?

[Dr Whitford]

The Conservatives tend to count on the farming community in Scotland. I echo what others have said: the National Farmers Union of Scotland is none too happy with what has been happening, particularly the failure to protect standards.

That brings us to the dreaded chlorine-washed chicken. Of course, it is not the chlorine that is the issue—if someone is not a great swimmer, they will have swallowed more in a swimming pool; the concern is about why the chicken is washed in chlorine in the first place. Because of the overcrowding of poultry and poor animal welfare standards, the US has between seven and 10 times the salmonella food poisoning rate of the UK, even after washing its poultry. It is clear that most consumers are none too keen on chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-fed beef, but the labelling restrictions under the Bill may well mean that they are not allowed to know. A lot of people may consider becoming vegetarian when such products appear, but that will not help them, because the US also allows higher pesticide residues.

After clause 46, which takes back control of spending in devolved areas, the mutual recognition clauses will have the biggest impact in respect of removing powers from the devolved Governments. Mutual recognition will mean that any devolved legislation to maintain or drive up standards will end up applying only to local producers and not to goods from elsewhere in the UK. That would, of course, put local producers at a disadvantage, without achieving the benefit that the devolved Government were seeking. The EU single market is based on mutual recognition, but the EU generally sets higher standards rather than lower ones and, as was mentioned previously, new standards are agreed by all 27—previously 28—nations. Unlike the UK, the EU accepts derogation for social benefits such as public health, consumer protection, waste reduction or tackling climate change. The Bill has no such derogations at all.

It has often been the devolved nations that have driven forward ideas and legislation in the UK. That should be welcomed, not obstructed. On health, Scotland was the first UK nation to introduce the smoking ban in 2006, and it led the way on the minimum-unit pricing of alcohol in 2018, which Wales is now seeking to follow, but this was specifically attacked as a regulatory restriction in the White Paper and could fall foul of either mutual recognition or non-discrimination—the Government do not seem to be very clear on that. While legislation that is already in place is exempt, any change to that legislation could bring it within the scope of the Bill, so that might act as a disincentive to increasing the unit price on alcohol in the future. Indeed, the whole Bill is a disincentive to creative legislation within the devolved Governments to improve life for their citizens.

On the environment, Wales was the first to charge for carrier bags in all shops in 2011, followed a couple of years later by Northern Ireland and Scotland. England finally followed in 2015, but only for large retailers. Last year, Scotland was the first UK nation to ban plastic stemmed cotton buds, which make up 5% to 10% of marine waste. Yet Scotland’s plans for a deposit return scheme to increase recycling and reduce litter is attacked in the White Paper. If the devolved nations have to always wait for the slowest, innovation and action will be stifled.

Part 3 of the Bill establishes similar new rules over professional qualifications and, ironically, seems to be modelling itself on freedom of movement. Under clause 22(2), anyone recognised as professionally qualified in one part of the UK must be accepted in all other nations of the UK. Of course, medical qualifications such as mine are part of a UK-wide registration, but there are professions with specific requirements to be registered in Scotland and Wales.

I note that, miraculously, there were still enough lawyers left in the Government to make sure that the new rule did not apply to the legal profession, as Scots law is of course completely separate, but what about other professions? England has introduced nursing apprentices and nursing associates, while Scotland still maintains nursing as an academic profession. Scotland and Wales both require a teaching qualification, but in England anyone with a degree can become a teacher without any formal teacher training. Education in Scotland was not devolved 20 years ago, but like Scots law and the Church of Scotland, it has been a separate entity since prior to the Act of Union and was protected in that Act.

This Bill is a piece of wanton vandalism. The Tories never supported devolution, and this Bill is driven by anti-devolution politics and control freakery, rather than anything to do with economics or business. There is an alternative to this high-handed and heavy-handed legislation. The UK Government should get back to the table and continue working on agreeing common frameworks, instead of winding back two decades of devolution.

I can tell the House that, regardless of their views on independence, the vast majority of people in Scotland support devolution. They appreciate the value of maintaining a unified public NHS and of Scotland’s wellbeing policies, from the baby box to free personal care. Last Friday was the sixth anniversary of our independence referendum, when the people of Scotland held control of their future in their own hands for 15 hours, but sadly gave it back. Among the broken promises of “Better Together”, which achieved that outcome, were “Vote No to stay in the EU” and promises of more devolution, not less, and of Scotland being an “equal partner” in a “family of nations”. This Bill leaves any shred of such a claim twisting in the wind. If the Prime Minister and his Government think this Bill will strengthen their precious Union, I have news for them: it will do precisely the opposite.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Philippa Whitford and Deidre Brock

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the potential effect on Scotland of UK immigration policy after the UK leaves the EU.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on the potential effect on Scotland of UK immigration policy after the UK leaves the EU.

Fisheries Bill

Debate between Philippa Whitford and Deidre Brock

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am certain that the Scottish Government will be closely following the debate and that they will make a note of his request.

If the steady stream of Ministers heading for the exit delays negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU, we could find ourselves in an extended period where our fishing industry just complies with the rules, rather than having someone in the room standing up for it. Mr Barnier has already suggested that it will last for at least two years, which could be an underestimate if we consider how long it took to reach the much simpler withdrawal agreement.

We may have to suffer the CFP for quite a few years to come and it may change to the advantage of the remaining members of the EU, and not to ours. We may lose markets to sell fish into, or at the very least, find that our competitive advantage disappears because we will be subject to the same tariffs as other non-member states. I hope they will be the same tariffs, but going by the poor negotiation results that we have seen so far, we may end up with higher tariffs that reduce our fleet’s traditional competitive advantage.

It will not come to that, of course, because the new fishing deal has already been written into the withdrawal agreement by the departing Brexit Secretary. On page 4, the political declaration tells us that he has agreed to a new fisheries agreement with access to UK waters and assigned quota shares being

“in place in time to be used for determining fishing opportunities for the first year after the transition period.”

That means the common fisheries policy will carry on regulating our fishing fleets after we have left the EU. Taking back control has never sounded so hollow.

It is a sad state of affairs for this Secretary of State to have to deliver that news, because in March he said that he feels a

“debt to fishing communities who are looking to government to deliver a better deal for them”

and promised that he would ensure that our

“fishermen’s interests are properly safeguarded”

during the implementation period. That period starts on 29 March and lasts for an indeterminate amount of time, during which access to some important markets might be limited. France, for example, is the UK’s most important export market for fish. It is nearly twice as lucrative in cash terms as the US, and almost three times as strong in export volumes. Spain, by the way, is just behind the US in cash terms and slightly ahead in volume. Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Germany are all significant customers for our fishing fleets. Two thirds of our fleet’s fish is exported—perhaps a case of EU citizens jumping the queue to buy fish.

Once the deals are done and we finally leave the CFP, however, we will still be in it. It is a conjuror’s trick, and not a good one. Last year, the Secretary of State spoke to leaders of the Danish industry and guaranteed them continued access to our waters after Brexit. Earlier this year, the UK embassy in Spain reassured Spanish trawlers that their access to UK waters was assured. The withdrawal agreement replaces common decision-making on the CFP as a member of the EU with CFP rules handed down from Brussels and no input from Ministers from these isles on behalf of the industry here. Well done to the Brexiteers—they certainly landed a whopper there.

The Norwegians sometimes describe their relationship with the EU as a “fax democracy”, because the rules just come down the line from Brussels. That seems to be what removing ourselves from the EU will do, except, of course, that the European maritime and fisheries fund money will vanish. We have heard nothing about what might replace that in due course.

We will be left to accept the rules that are handed down; we will lose access to the decision-making body and the funding from the EU; and we will have to deal with the consequences of the Government’s poor negotiation techniques and the uniquely weak position that they have left us in. When the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave evidence to the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee 26 months ago, he said that

“we have to recognise historic rights…In some sectors, for instance on scallops, access to the French part of the channel is quite important to the UK industry. I accept there are trade-offs. All these things will be a matter for negotiation in a new world.”

During the referendum campaign, the Secretary of State for Scotland said:

“I think the fishermen are wrong in the sense there is no way we would just go back to Scotland or Britain controlling British waters. There are a whole host of international rules and agreements even if we were outside the EU which would impact on their activities.”

Then of course there is the same problem agriculture has in relation to workforce planning. We will lose access to EU workers, who make up 58% of Scotland’s fish processing workforce and 70% in Grampian, where the Secretary of State’s family business was based.

Scotland’s seafood and fishing industries could be destroyed without access to EU markets. Scotland’s processing industry could be irreversibly damaged without access to EU workers. We also have to consider Scottish farmed salmon, the UK’s most valuable food export, and how losing the market advantage over Norwegian salmon that EU membership gives us could be utterly devastating. Scotland stands to lose a lot without access and there is little indication of how any of it might be replaced.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Fishermen in the north-east are often quoted as saying that more fish will be consumed in the UK, rather than exported. In my constituency, however, the south-west Scotland market consists of nephrops, crustaceans, langoustine and lobster. Some 85% are exported to the European market. It might well be that we all eat a little bit more white fish after Brexit, but I cannot see anybody being in a financial situation where they are going to be eating more lobster.

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I am delighted that she brings up the interests of the south-west part of the country.

Once more, Scotland’s needs are massively different to the needs of England. Once more, we cannot have the Scottish industry locked into a rigid framework that will satisfy the English industry. Fishing, of course, has been a devolved matter since 1999 and the responsibility for nearly all the policy area rests in Edinburgh. I think the Government acknowledge as much, with the legislative consent motion they have asked for at Holyrood.

The industry cannot be squeezed into the same box as the English industry, but I appreciate the desirability of common frameworks to allow co-operative working on various issues—kind of like the EU managed with the CFP. Where such frameworks are sought and agreed by both sides they will be mutually beneficial, but they cannot be imposed. They must recognise the devolution settlement and respect it. There must be an element of trust that runs between Whitehall and Holyrood. Her Majesty’s Government must allow Scotland’s Government to govern in the devolved areas and this Parliament must allow Scotland’s Parliament to legislate in devolved areas.

Welfare Reform and Work Act

Debate between Philippa Whitford and Deidre Brock

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. This debate marks two years since the passage of the Welfare Reform and Work Act, which received Royal Assent on 16 March 2016. It brought in several key changes: the four-year benefit freeze, a further reduction in the benefit cap, a cut to the family element of tax credits and the introduction of the two-child limit, and removal of the work-related activity group component from employment and support allowance. It also saw changes in the work allowance within universal credit, leading to a 63% taper, and further housing benefit cuts. Those cuts had hit people in the private rented sector previously, but were now brought in to hit the social rented sector.

The problem is that we cannot look at the 2016 Act in isolation, because it comes on top of the cuts in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and, in fact, Budget changes going right back to 2010. We have seen eight years of relentless attacks on the most vulnerable in our society. Two groups particularly hit were the disabled and children. In 2008 incapacity benefit was changed to employment and support allowance; and, as the National Audit Office has highlighted today, 70,000 people were underpaid because their right to income-related employment and support allowance was not recognised. The Government are undertaking to pay back all that money by next year, but people have spent nine years without money that they were owed. Interestingly, the Government will pay back only to October 2014 and not any earlier arrears. That is a bit funny, because when we have to pay the Government, somehow there is never a statute of limitations.

In 2013 there was the move from disability living allowance to personal independent payments. Those are meant to cover the additional costs relating specifically to disability; they are not meant to be work related. They are also meant to allow someone with a disability to study or work and achieve the best that they can.

Both employment and support allowance and personal independence payment require a fair assessment of someone’s disability, or indeed ability. Instead, people got work capability assessments. Those are really the key problem for people who are disabled. The process was outsourced initially to Atos and is now outsourced also to Capita. The Government aspire to depend predominantly on face-to-face assessments. A key issue is the gradual reduction in sourcing other evidence, despite the claimant assuming that the Department for Work and Pensions will source other evidence regarding their underlying condition.

I can accept that we would want to look at someone’s capability and not pigeonhole them, but knowing what underlying condition they have can tell us whether that is something that will change, improve or never improve. There have been repeated assessments of people with chronic conditions and deteriorating conditions, congenital abnormalities and permanent injuries, such as amputations or spinal injuries. People with terminal diseases have been recalled for repeated assessments.

There is a particular problem regarding the assessment of people with mental illness or learning disability. I am sure that every MP will have had cases in which there has been poor recognition of how a mental illness affects someone’s abilities. I had to raise in this place the case of a constituent who had complex post-traumatic stress disorder after serving in the Gulf war—to the point where he struggled ever to leave the house. He was on DLA at the highest rate. He was moved over to PIP at the highest rate and then called for reassessment, at which point he was moved to the lower rate. He appealed, which of course many people do because of the high rate of change of assessment when people appeal. That shows how poor the original assessments were.

However, following my constituent’s appeal, all his points were taken away, and what my caseworker heard back when inquiring was, “PIP is really for people who can’t carry out the basic tasks of daily life. People with mental illness can of course wash themselves, cook, clean and shop.” Well, that is said by someone who has never seen profound depression, which looks like the batteries have simply been taken out of someone. That issue appears again and again in all our casework inboxes. The other conditions we are talking about are those that wax and wane. Someone may attend for assessment on a good day and they are often bullied into saying what they can achieve on their best day. That is not a realistic assessment of what their life is like.

As Scotland takes over some of the benefits, we are aiming to treat people with greater dignity. We will ensure that we have sourced the medical information and try to ensure that the assessor is equipped with the clinical skills to assess the person they are viewing, because that process has become really traumatic for people who are suffering from disability.

Under PIP, more than half of people have lost some or all of their benefits, particularly the mobility element. Many of us have been involved in trying to hold on to mobility cars for some of our constituents. We have seen the distance that people need to be able to walk reduced to 20 metres. Frankly, that is the distance from the car park into the supermarket; it is not a distance that would allow someone to walk to their nearest bus stop, or to walk from the bus stop at the other end to wherever they are trying to go. Then people’s unpaid carers lose carer’s allowance. That means that the impact on a disabled family can be huge.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of a recent report commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission called “The cumulative impact of tax and welfare reforms”? It showed that, overall, the changes to taxes, benefits, tax credits and universal credit meant that households with at least one disabled adult and one disabled child would lose more than £6,500 a year, which is more than 13% of their annual income.

UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Debate between Philippa Whitford and Deidre Brock

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock]

In a moment.

I have no doubt that the Minister could add to the lament were she so minded. This river of human misery should shame the Government and every legislator who stands in this Chamber, but it does not. Instead, the atmosphere of persecution creates fear and distrust, leaving people isolated and alone, which is a form of psychological damage that may be even more cruel than the physical damage.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

This week, we noted World Mental Health Day. One of the biggest contributors to stress and mental ill health is poverty and the desperation brought about by the changes my hon. Friend is describing.

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is another thing about which we have heard just too much in our surgeries in recent years. Unfortunately, there is no sign of it ending. Two of the three disability premiums that were included under employment and support allowance are missing from universal credit, so severely disabled people could lose £78.35 per week—around £340 a month—from their income. Research carried out by the citizens advice bureau in East Lothian showed that disabled recipients of universal credit will lose up to a fifth of their income.

Against that background, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reported in August on the progress that the UK has made towards fulfilling its obligations under the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It is fair to say that the committee was not complimentary to the UK Government. It praised the Scottish Government and gave some praise to the Welsh Government, but it did not feel able to say much in favour of the UK Government’s efforts. I really hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that there will be better news in future reports.

The United Nations report criticised the austerity fetish, condemned the cuts to funding offered to people with disabilities for independent living and called on the Government to backtrack. The tally of the committee’s recommendations for the UK exceeded 80 and covered a huge range of areas in which we have simply failed people with disabilities, in which Parliament has not protected them and in which the Government have assaulted them. It is, as the chairperson of the UN committee said, a human catastrophe. The Government have totally neglected people with disabilities.

At the end of last year, the same UN committee said that UK Government policies and cuts amounted to systematic violations of the rights of people with disabilities. The Government’s response appears to have rested on saying that the committee misunderstood and that they were improving and building on the support available to disabled people. I hope that the Minister will offer us a little more than that today.

The Government have not acted on the previous report from the committee, so I hope we get some commitment to action on the most recent one. I am not asking for an answer to every point in the committee’s report—I am sure that a team of civil servants is already working on that and that responses will come in due course—but I would like an indication of whether the Minister and the Department intend to press ahead with addressing the concerns raised by the UN.

The UK is going backwards in respect of far too many critical rights for people with disabilities. The concluding observations in the committee’s report contained probably the highest number of recommendations from the committee for any state so far. I appreciate that it is a bit difficult to turn a Government around to point in a different direction, especially when so many senior members of that Government seem to have other things on their minds, but will the Minister give a commitment that she will at least work towards addressing all the committee’s recommendations? I hope that she will be able to give such a commitment and that she will apply some honest endeavour to get her colleagues in government to pay some attention to the issues. Will she give us that commitment that she will seek to address each and every one of the recommendations?

Will the Minister also give us a commitment that she will include deaf and disabled people’s organisations in the work to address the recommendations—and I mean fully, not just a quick consultation and then carrying on regardless? Will she have the DDPOs in the room, as part of the process and a fully functioning part of her efforts, as recommended by paragraph 53 of the report?