09/03/2016 House of Commons

We will come to the points of order. Honourable members raising points of

order should have an attentive audience. Which seems more likely

once those leaving have done so quickly and quietly. And what is

more, sorry to disappoint the honourable gentleman, whose

eagerness is evident for all to see, that the points of order come out of

the question and this statement. I'm sure these are genuine points of

order, honourable members will come scurrying back to the chamber to air

their concerns at the appropriate moment. Meanwhile, we have quite

considerably important and rich Parliamentary offering. Grateful to

the honourable gentleman from North Dorset, with an urgent question. He

is a very senior denizen of the House. Urgent question, Mr John

Redwood. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he will make a

statement on what new financial and other obligations apply to the

United Kingdom in the EU Turkey agreement. Minister of State. The

agreements reached in principle at the EU Turkey summit on Monday

represent a basis which could mean in future all migrants arriving

increase will be returned to Turkey. If implemented that would break the

business model of the people smugglers. Ending the link between

getting in a boat and settling in Europe. Something the Prime Minister

and the government have been arguing for for over a year. It would not

impose obligations on the United Kingdom, in terms of resettlement

and relocation. We are able to maintain our own border controls and

make our own decisions on asylum. Nor were the United Kingdom beards

obliged to settle any more refugees. We are resettling 20,000 of the most

vulnerable Syrians to the United Kingdom from our own scheme. We will

not be part of the process of liberalising visas, that is a

process for the Schengen countries. We still require visas for Turkish

citizens visiting Britain. The European union agreed on Monday in

due course to extend the financial support to help Turkey. Currently no

further proposals on funding returns, and we wait to see any

proposals before commenting. We have already agreed to pay our ?250

million share of the existing 3 billion euros Turkey refugee

facility. I'd tabled a written ministerial statement about this

earlier this week. This builds on our existing ?1.1 billion bilateral

support for the Syrian crisis, and the additional bilateral commitment

we made at the recent London conference on Syria. The Turkey

refugee facility is designed to provide immediate humanitarian

support, and also to fund of the schools, hospitals and housing

required over the longer term to support refugees and the communities

which host them. The agreement at the EU Turkey summit on Monday we

ensure that the 3 billion euros commitment agreed at last November's

EU Turkey summit is properly dispersed. Over the coming weeks we

will aim to reach final agreement at the European Council on the 17th and

18th of March. After which my right honourable friend, the Prime

Minister will make a statement of the House as usual. Mr Speaker, one

of the reasons I asked for this urgent question, the statement from

the EU heads of state or government issued yesterday makes it very clear

that the Visa liberalisation applies to all member states of the European

Union, not just the Schengen area. I quote from the official document.

They agreed to accelerate the intimidation of the Visa

liberalisation road map with all member states, with a view to

lifting the Visa requirements for Turkish citizens at the latest by

the end of June 20 16. Will the Minister be seeking clarification

and an amendment to this statement, he has told us these Visa

requirement waivers will not apply to all states. Is he going to

negotiate an opt out to make it very clear they will not do so. This'll

be a matter of concern to people, if the text issued from the heads of

government and state meeting is not the same as the clear statements we

have in getting from ministers there, and through the media in the

last few hours. The second thing, which I'm surprised he has not

mentioned, there was not an agreement to an accelerated process

to get Turkey to join the European Union as a full member. I would like

to get him to comment on the United Kingdom's position on the face of

the proceedings to get Turkey into the EU, and what arrangements, if

any, need to be maimed when Turkey joins, over freedom of movement, and

whether they would need to be transitional arrangements, which

Britain would not wish to be part of the freedom of movement area without

proper transitional arrangements and protections. I find it curious that

we still don't know what we may be paying, if our share of 3 billion is

250 million, plus the contribution we have made through the EU budget,

presumably we're looking at more than 250 million on top of that, if

a double it up from three - six. That will be a levy on the member

states, and I think it should be properly reported to the House of

Commons, because it is an additional contribution on top of the normal

budget. If I could respond to my right honourable friend's three

questions, we have not sat from Schengen, written into the treaties.

Similar arrangements applied to Ireland and Denmark in different

respects. The legal measure used for any liberalisation of these

arrangements to Turkey would be a Schengen measure, brought forward

under the appropriate treaty -based, therefore not applying to the United

Kingdom, Denmark or Ireland. I have made clear my response to the right

honourable friend, the government does not intend to liberalise Visa

arrangements to Turkey. On the second point, it has been the policy

of successive British governments are including the one in which my

right honourable friend served with such distinction to support the

eventual addition to the youth of Turkey. -- the EU. That will not be

happening in the near future. The head states of government said on

Monday they would prepare for the decision on the opening of new chat

is for the negotiations as soon as possible. To open a chapter like

chapter 23, dealing with matters of the rule of law may well be very

helpful in strengthening the dialogue we should be having with

Turkey on the rule of law, human rights, and the standards except

expected of candidate members of the European Union. Again, no agreement

yet been reached, of any aspect of opening new chapters, and many

different member states will have their views on that. My right

honourable friend's particular point about Turkish accession, and freedom

of movement, the governance has said repeatedly, we will not agree to any

enlargement of the year, unless we have first put in place new

arrangements for the controls and freedom of movement. -- EU. So do we

do not take on the risk we have had in 2004 a very large movements of

people. In the aftermath of EU accession. Every decision to do with

EU membership requires unanimous decisions, every country has a veto.

Third might right honourable friend asked about finance, as I said in my

initial comment, no formal proposals on the table, ongoing negotiation at

EU level, where there are many moving parts. My right honourable

friend, the Prime Minister, will make a statement after the European

Council next week. The refugee facility agreed last year is

something that is budgeted for, that is having to, causing

reprioritisation by the commission amongst the various spending

programmes, and that seems to be a sensible thing for them to be doing.

The countries of the Middle East and the European Union are now

confronted by the biggest refugee crisis since the end of the Second

World War. The last 12 months, over 1 million people have the European

Union by C. Does the Minister agree that the only way to deal with this

crisis is to work with our European neighbours and other countries

affected by this in the region, including Turkey? We welcome the

fact that people are working together to try to find a solution,

rather than individual solutions to what is clearly a collective

challenge. We also need to recognise that the language we use reflects

that we are talking about fellow human beings in the most difficult

of circumstances. Does the Minister then agree with me that it was

deeply irresponsible of the Prime Minister to refer to people who are

frightened, in difficult situations, women, children, as a bunch of

migrants was to mark does the Minister agree that the only way to

prevent this flow of refugees is to stop because of it, the slaughter of

people in their own country? The EU have said they agree the broadband

support of a plan to ease the migration crisis, so can the migrant

-- canny Minister tell us how many of the promised 12 thousand --

20,000 refugees we have settled? Can he set out how the money offered

will be spent, how will he ensure it will be spent on what is intended

and how? Does the Minister agree that this is why we need to work

together internationally, rather than walking away from our shared

interests and responsibilities? Can I start by agreeing with the

honourable lady that it is in this country's interests and in every

European country's interests that we put together a determined and

coherent response to this crisis. I would agree with her, too, that no

single European country can solve this human tragedy and the wicked

work of the people traffickers exploiting tragedy on our own. She

asked me about the ceasefire in season -- in Syria. The latest

information we have is that it is holding but it is not holding

perfectly. I don't think that should come as a surprise to any member of

the House. The Prime Minister took part with other European leaders in

a conference call with President Putin a feud a 's ago to take stock

of how things looked and to urge President Putin to urge -- to work

towards a political settlement and a transition in Syria which we

continue to believe represents, long-term, the best answer to try to

rebuild that country to give people a safe and secure life there. She

asked me about how the business model of the people traffickers was

going to be harmed by the decisions last week. One of the key elements

of the deal, and I emphasise again that this has yet to be finalised,

one of the key elements would be that somebody who went in a boat and

was then intercepted or was processed, having reached one of the

Greek islands, would face being sent back to Turkey and then being put to

the back of the queue as far as a legal resettlement wheat was

concerned, so the incentive for people to entrust their safety to

the people carriers would be removed. She asked me about the

number of arrival -- arrivals in this country under the Syrian

refugee resettlement scheme. It is now running at over 1000. It is

going on track, much as we had planned, and I ought to recognise

the role that both the devolved administrations and local

authorities of all political colours have played in trying to make this

successful. They are trying to make it as easy a process as it is

possible to be for the people we are trying to help. My honourable friend

correctly said there is no obligation on the United Kingdom to

take in extra migrants in this deal. Will he confirm that any of the 1

million migrants who have come to Europe in the last year and be

million who are expected this year, once they are given citizenship,

will all have the right to come to these the UK so long as we arrive --

we remain in Europe? Because we are outside Schengen, we impose border

checks on everyone, including EU citizens, and we have the right to

tighten them back when we think their presence in the United Kingdom

might impact on our safety. Those who have been granted refugee status

in Europe, have been granted it in Germany, for those trying to get

there, the proportion of refugees who actually get German citizenship

is only 2.2% of all refugees. That is because the German citizenship

procedure is so rigorous. It takes eight to ten years before somebody

can get German citizenship. To do that, you have to do have a

completely clean criminal record, show you have an independent source

of income and you have to pass an integration test including

demonstrating a knowledge of German. So I think some of the fears which

have been expressed are rather exaggerated given the reality of the

German situation. We share the deep concerns expressed by the United

Nations that these oppose laws would alternate the Syrians right to

protection under international law. With this in mind, what advice has

the Minister received on this issue? Can he set up transparency around

the 3 billion euros set to be given to Turkey around the end of March'

and lastly, what can he do to encourage human rights in Turkey and

hold the Prime Minister to account against his actions against his own

citizens is to mark on the final point, we speak all the time to

Turkish colleagues about human rights and rule of law matters and,

as I said earlier, we believe that the EU accession process,

particularly chapters 23 and 24, can be opened to provide the best means

for seeking those reforms in Turkey, which I think has support on all

sides of this House. The statement of the heads of state and Government

says in terms that all these arrangements must be done in a way

that complies with international law, so that is something which

every Government has taken on board. I don't think we should forget

either that Turkey has provided refuge to about 2.6 million people

who have fled from Syria. A large number of those people have been

living in safety in UN administered camps inside Turkey for many months

contact -- many months, sometimes years, so let us not forget to

acknowledge the hospitality that the Turkish Government and ordinary

people of Turkey have shown. This simply serves to demonstrate that

this is proof that you has agreed to encourage the accession of Turkey

into the EU. Does the Minister agree this is not right with the human

rights situation as it is, not least for their Kurdish population? We

would hope that as soon as possible the peace process with the Turkish

Kurds would begin again, which appeared to be making progress up to

six months again. On my honourable friend's other point, as I have said

before, there has been no agreement yet as to whether or not particular

chapters or any number of chapters of the accession negotiation should

be opened. This is something which the heads of Government are going to

return to next week at the European Council and they would have to be --

there would have to be unanimous agreement to each and every decision

to open a new chapter or two agree that progress had been made on any

element of Turkey's accession negotiation. This is not a swift

process. Under this deal, Turkey has received 3 billion euros. It has

asked for a further 3 billion euros by the end of 2018. When will those

negotiations start and, given that 90% of those entering beat you

illegally do so with the assistance of criminal gangs, why has the Prime

Minister and the EU not ensured that Turkey would be paid on the

performance basis for the number of people traffickers that they bring

to justice? People traffickers need to be brought to justice in

whichever jurisdiction they opposite -- they operate. It is often the

case that the people committing the crimes, involved in trafficking at

the sharp end, are not the people at the top of these organisations. As

the right honourable gentleman knows, we are talking about their

re-professional, very well organised and well funded international

criminal networks who often indulge in drug smuggling as well as in

people smuggling. These are transnational companies engaged in

criminal enterprise. There has been no agreement yet on anything going

beyond the 3 billion euros refugee facility that was agreed in November

last year. Since that agreement, Turkey has taken a number of steps

to help refugees from Syria, for example by making it possible for

them to get legitimate work with in Turkey and opening up permit

arrangements for them. Everyone in this House will have heard some

disturbing reports recently of a newspaper office in Turkey being

closed down for publishing critical commentary about the Turkish

Government. Could the Secretary of State please inform the House, do

member states of the European Union value ever closer union and freedom

of movement over and above the rights to freedom of speech of the

individual? The EU and the United Kingdom Government made very clear

last week that we continue to see freedom of the press, freedom of

expression in the media, as a cornerstone of the values that we

champion at international level. Adherence to those principles is

written into the European treaties and no country that fails to

subscribe to those can expect to receive EU membership. The principle

of stopping the dangerous smuggler routes and providing instead safe,

legal routes to Sanctuary is clearly a sensible one. He will know there

are a series of legal, practical and physical problems with regards to

that and whilst he makes clear that there will be no changes to Turkish

these arrangements for Britain, I suspect in many other areas they

will be changes in the week ahead. Can he tell me whether the British

Government has raised the plight of Afghan and Iraqi refugees, it in

particular we know that around half of solo children who claimed asylum

in January were from Afghanistan. What will the situation be for them?

The honourable lady makes a reasonable point on the position of

people who have come from other war-torn countries, as that needs to

be considered very seriously. We do need, at all times, to bear in mind

the basic principles of the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, which are

first that to get refugee status you have do show that you have a well

founded fear of persecution and, second, there is an expectation that

when somebody please, they should seek and apply for refugee status in

the first safe country that they reach and not try to pick and

choose, perhaps at the behest of people traffickers, various

countries. May I press my right honourable

friend further on human rights and rule of law abuses in Turkey, in

relation to the EU Turkey agreement? Even though last year because I

provided him with a copy, Lord Woolf, and Sarah Pailin wrote a

report, and the right honourable gentleman and I wrote about the

human rights abuses carried out by the Turkish government. May I ask

the Minister to firm up attitudes towards Turkish admission? While

these abuses continue, there should be no question about them joining.

Even though we need Turkey as a member of Nato, and the agreement

with the migration problem? We certainly continue to regard their

adherence to principles of human rights, freedom of expression, and

belief, and so on, as aims that should be at the heart of the reform

work of any country seeking to join the European Union fools of what I

put in my right honourable friend, the evidence of other accession

negotiations, is that it is possible to secure much swifter and more

significant progress towards those reforms that we all want to see when

you sit down and start working on the details benchmarks, and progress

measurements in those chapters of an EU accession, dealing specifically

with the rule of law matters. The amount of money given by the EU to

Turkey is fully justified, and hopefully more will come, for the

reasons the Minister has explained. Would he accept, arising from

previous questions, over a period of time the president of Turkey has

done his best to undermine democratic rights in that country?

Outright intimidation of critics? A newspaper taking over last week by

his henchmen, becoming a mouthpiece for the regime? More recently than

that, a news agency. Does the Minister realise, there can be no

question of Turkey becoming in any way associated with the EU while

this intimidation of critics continues? Indeed the president of

Turkey gives a very good example of trying to follow Putin. As I've said

before, Mr Speaker, we continue to talk frequently with Turkish

officials and Turkish ministers at all levels about the importance we

ascribe the human rights, the rule of law, and freedom of expression.

That will continue to be a core element of our dialogue with Turkey.

Further to the question put to my honourable friend, by the honourable

member, I'm not clear what the government's position on the

legality of this mass transfer of intercepted migrants back to Turkey

is. What instructions are being given to the tax -- captain of the

Royal Fleet boats, when they intercept the baiter migrants. As

the captain be authorised to take those people back to Turkey? Will

they be accepted? How does that fit made by the comments -- fit with the

comments made by the UNHCR last night? I'm not sure if my honourable

friend was in the House for the statement my right honourable

friend, the Secretary of State for Defence made on Monday about the

Naval operation. De Nadai operation is in gauge is in initial

reconnaissance and surveillance of illegal crossings. They pass that

information the Turkish authorities at the Turkey censor the Coast Guard

can carry at intersections. Not work done by Navy vessels. Anyone

watching the refugees and the scenes across Europe over the past year

will know we simply could not carry on as we were. This requires us to

act in concert with others, in terms of the consequences of what is

happening, and the causes rooted in war and conflict. Can I therefore

agree with the Minister, no individual country can deal with

these consequences alone. Can I urge him to reject any approach that says

Britain's answer should be to pay nothing, do nothing and fill up the

drawbridge? I think this country has a long and proud tradition, both of

seeking to help people who are in dire need, wherever in the world

they are, but also seeking to build political stability in areas that

are in what I may describe as our own neighbourhood. I think there

have been plenty of examples in our history, and European history, where

the failure to grip problems decisively has led to worse

conflict, and worse human suffering. And worse political problems for

European governments that have been taken earlier. Can I press my

honourable friend further on the legality of this deal? As I

understand it the UN's top official on refugees has thrown for expressed

real concern about an arrangement that involves a blanket return of

anyone from one country to another. What I'm particularly concerned

about is that this looks as if the EE is trading one set of refugees in

Greece for another set of refugees in Turkey. I cannot see where the

guarantee is in this arrangement that they will be any drop-off in

numbers. I am beginning to find this arrangement very, very worrying. As

I said earlier, Mr Speaker, one of the elements of this agreement, if

it can be finalised next week, will be, for the first time, we will be

breaking the link between people getting into a boat, or people being

rescued from a boat in the Aegean Sea, and gaining rights to go into a

resettlement process and relocation process inside the European Union.

Instead they will be an agreed legal route for people to go from the

camps into European countries. That will provide a very serious

disincentive for people to place themselves in the roofless and

exploitative hands of the people traffickers. On the matter of

legality, the statement of the heads of state governments there is in

terms, whatever arrangement they may reach next week should be in

accordance with both European and international law. I wish to

associate the Liberal Democrats with the comments on free speech. Also

the comments made in regards to be very troubling 141 refugee

agreement, raising both practical and moral concerns. The Minister is

a very honourable man, surely cannot be comfortable with an agreement

that requires refugees to risk their lives travelling to the EE you, in

return for another refugee only from Syria to get safe passage. That is

entirely unacceptable. The purpose we have is to put in place a set of

arrangements which remove the incentives for people to trust their

safety to the people traffickers. Unless we are able to do that, the

risk is exactly that the flow of people, and the appalling casualties

resulting from that flow of people will continue. As always, the

Minister is putting in a very skilful performance. The matters as

to whether Turkey joining the EU is very important. Once again the

Foreign Secretary has not answered one urgent question recently. We

would like to see him more. The question of Turkey joining the EE

you, it is Her Majesty's considered opinion that Turkey should not be a

member of the EE. We have been blackmailed into progressing this.

Given the closure of the main opposition paper, can the Minister

confirm as a matter of fact, once Turkey joining the EU, because the

EE believes saved passionately in the free movement of people. All 77

million Turkish people will be to come and live there and work there

without any check at all, and there's nothing we can do about it.

As I said in some of my earlier remarks, we are not yet at the point

where anything has been finally agreed. My right honourable friend

the Prime Minister will make a statement after next week's European

Council. The support for Turkey eventually to join the European

Union is an objective that has been shared by Conservative and Labour

governments since before I was in the House of Commons. My honourable

friend is not correct to say this will be rushed, certainly not the

history of previous accession negotiations, they take many years,

and there is a right of veto for every member state over every single

decision associated with an accession process. One thing that

has to be sorted out, during accession negotiations, what the

arrangements of movement will be. As the Prime Minister has said on many

occasions, the United Kingdom will not agree to any further members of

the European Union and so we have new and different arrangements in

place that ensure that a new member joining the EE cannot again leads to

the very large migratory flows we saw after 2004. Turkey has indicated

it needs ?6 billion to address the problems of your Fugees. It is much

better to address the crisis where it begins. Can the Minister say what

discussions he has had with the Turkish catchment to ensure the

money is sent to the places it is needed most. And those with

Christian and other beliefs perceive it as well? The money that has been

assigned, both in our bilateral spending, and at EU level is going

to people in need in Turkey, and in the surroundings and eight. There is

a separate facility to give humanitarian support to refugees and

asylum seekers in Greece, that the large sums of money I have been

talking about are being spent in Turkey. The answer to the honourable

gentleman, both the United Kingdom and the European Union disperses the

money very largely through the United Nations relief agents these,

such as Unicef, and through the major reputable non-governmental

humanitarian relief organisations, so it can help those in need, and we

know it is going there. Those of us in favour of leaving the European

Union gives certainty as what that 12 lookalike. The Minister's speech

is full of caveats as to what may or may not happen. Does he accept that

is what in looks like for those of us concerned of human rights issues?

And the things that will come with the Turkish accession? There can be

no certainty that the fear factor staying in, it is not safe for to

stay in rather than leave? The reason that I am caveat in some

of what I am saying is the very reason that there was negotiation at

the summit on Sunday but there has not been a final agreement. There

will be an effort to reach final agreement next week and then my

honourable friend will be able to question the pie minister about the

detail of that. I would simply say to her, she and I differ on the

issue of EU membership, but habit of working together with in

Europe to solve foreign policy problems which cannot be met by any

one individual country on its own, not even the biggest or most

influential, is a sign of health and a good reason for us to remain

members of that organisation. Turkey has a pivotal position in all of

this. It could make the move is to make sure we have safe havens in

Syria but it equally has an important role in stopping the

people traffickers. Can I ask the Minister whether the British

Government has seen plans from the Turkish Government on how they

intend to stop the people traffickers? There are talks going

on between our enforcement agencies, between Europol and their Turkish

counterparts, I think you will understand why I do not want to go

into detail about those. His point about safe havens, those are a

possibility. That possibility was discussed at the new Turkey summit

but there are many political, legal and military complications to that

particular step. We haven't ruled it out but there is no agreement on

that as yet. Surely the most important thing in all of this is to

deal with the problem at source, namely Syria? So what discussions

were had with the Turks and the EU as to how to put more pressure on

the parties in the Geneva process to make sure we have a lasting peace

agreement in Syria? Those discussions did take place within

the summit, although the purpose of the summit was to try to hammer out

a way forward in dealing with the refugee crisis that is causing such

difficulties, both to Turkey and to the European Union. I can assure my

honourable friend that the British Government and other European

governments are in constant contact with our Turkish counterparts about

how best to bring an end to the appalling conflict inside Syria. The

Minister must recognise that an act of humanitarian response must

involve more than simply asking Turkey to facilitate the mass

expulsion under a barter scheme of different classes of refugees. Will

they properly address next week the concerns about whether or not this

scheme violates international law on human rights? Yes and that is why

the statement issued after Monday's summit said explicitly that the

agreement we were seeking had to comply with international law. This

agreement is related to a wider issue of underfunding of refugee

camps across the Middle East by the international community. What will

be governed do to reinforce the message from the United Nations that

many of our international partners, not the UK, we have done our fair

share, many of our international parties -- partners are not stepping

up to do their fair share? My honourable friend makes a very fair

point. I think we can trace the surge in movement from Turkey into

Europe last summer in large part due to the decision the UN had to take

to cut food rations and restrict educational possibilities inside the

camps, leaving more people to feel they had no option but to place

themselves in the hands of people traffickers. My honourable friend

will, I think, know that the United Kingdom co-hosted a Syria donors

conference in London just a few weeks ago and that produced pledges

from the international community of more than ?10 billion. That is a

welcome step forward but I will be the first to say we now have do

ensure that those pledges are turned into real money going to help the

people who are in desperate need. I absolutely agree that Turkey's

crucial partner in the efforts to resolve the situation in Syria and

that shall we should be doing more ourselves in supporting Turkey in

helping with the migrant crisis but can I tell the Minister that the

largest number of UK citizens of Turkish origin live in North London

and Enfield in particular. The vast majority of Kurdish and they are

concerned about what is happening in Turkey in terms of the president

refusing to acknowledge the decision of the Constitution, the

imprisonment of over 30 journalists, curfews and the restriction on

freedom of speech and the death of many innocent people who are their

friends and relatives. Although the EU may be the context of the

accession process in which these issues can be resolved, can the

Minister insurance these issues will be raised with the president and

will not be brushed aside? Certainly as far as the UK is concerned, we

raised the sort of concerns the honourable lady has expressed in our

dialogue with the Turkish Government at every level. Recognising at the

same time that Turkey is in a better place today than it was under

military rule, but we want to see our Turkish ally move with greater

energy towards that full recognition of the rule of law and human rights

that the Turkish Government says that they remain committed to. It is

very good for me to be able to call the honourable gentleman today. Mr

Bernard Jenkin. Thank you for that. May I put it to my honourable friend

that actually this deal is a rather grubby one? We all know that the

Government and the whole of the European Union is desperate to be

seen to be resolving this migration crisis, but this is a self

restricted -- a self-inflicted crisis in some way because the

Schengen arrangement is an invitation to those to get into

Europe to try to travel anywhere, so they are doing a very grubby deal

with a country with a difficult human rights record in order to send

these refugees back to their country of origin. Can I draw his attention

to what we have given up in this agreement? It says that we are going

to accelerate the these are situation with all member states. I

don't doubt his sincerity that he intends that only two applied to the

Schengen area. Will he take care that it does only apply to the

Schengen area in any text drafting of this agreement next week? The

first thing is to reiterate again that as yet there has been no deal.

That is a matter for discussions between now and next week European

-- next week's European Council. I'm sure my honourable friend has

studied the treaty is intensely, in which case he will know that a

measure affecting users or migration has to be brought forward on a

treaty -based, where the United Kingdom is not bound, where the

United Kingdom can choose whether or not to opt in. The Prime Minister

has made it very clear that we are not going to participate in Beazer

liberalisation with Turkey. That is a sovereign decision for us to take

-- Visa liberalisation. That is recognised in European treaties. I

think most reasonable people would support a mechanism put in place to

stop the people trafficking routes and the dangerous routes across the

Mediterranean. But can I ask the Minister, what assessment will be

Government make when this mechanism is in place to ensure it is

operating in the way he envisages it operating but also that the money

reaches the people precisely it once -- we wanted to reach, the refugees?

The honourable gentleman makes a very fair point and monitoring the

review mechanisms must be part of any eventual agreement and that is

the sort of thing officials will be working on in the week to come. I

share the concern for the thorough Terry and approach of the president.

-- the authoritarian approach of the president. We know there is a great

burden on the refugees and the standard of their camps is better

than anywhere in Europe, not least of all France. Can he confirm that

these negotiations will not renege on the issue of the Cyprus problem?

My honourable friend hints at one of the issues that has caused the

stalling of the process of accession negotiation in recent years. That is

something that, again, is going to need to be thought about and talked

about in the days before next week's European Council meeting. There has

been no agreement as yet on opening any accession chapter. Isn't the

logic of the proposal that if Turkey successfully stops the crossings,

then no refugees are resettled from Turkey? Isn't that a greater

incentive than ever for Turkey to waive people onto the boats and

isn't it clearer than ever the better solution is to offer safer

routes? That is not the nature of the discussion that we are having

with Turkey. I think it is slightly simplistic. I don't want to be

unkind, but it is slightly simplistic to think that Turkey can

simply switch the and off as regards flows of people and the activities

of people traffickers, particularly when you look at the sea crossing to

the island of Samos. Only 1600 metres separate the Turkish and the

Greek coast. Once a dinghy has gone 800 metres, they are in Greek

territorial waters. There was a clear commitment on Monday by both

the pro Minister of Turkey and EU leaders to find a way forward and a

recognition that it was in the interest of both EU countries and

Turkey itself that this issue should be settled I a coherent,

well-planned strategy outlined in the paper issued. Is it not the case

that one of the biggest problems facing Turkey is the situation in

Syria? Is it not the case that the Russian action in Syria has produced

a large new wage of refugees -- wave of refugees leaving that area? I

could emphasise what my right honourable friend said on the 7th of

March, emphasising that a lot of the money that we are putting in, and

the comments are right about Turkey's human rights issue, but do

we not have more power being in the EU than being on the outside carping

about it? I agree that if we are not at the table, we will not be able to

shape or influence those decisions in anyway. We really do have an

excellent Minister for direct, with a great record over the years and I

hope he is there after the 23rd of June and will negotiate our exit

from the EU. Can I ask him to day that in the question of certainty,

the British people can only be certain that 77 million Turkish

citizens won't have the right to come to this country for certainty?

The only way we will get certainty is if we come out of the European

Union. Must urge my honourable friend to

study the European treaties and particularly the European

directives. The treaties are quite clear. Each and every aspect of

accession negotiations, including negotiations for controls on

migration must be agreed in unanimity. Every state including the

UK has a veto on every aspect of an accession negotiation. I think he's

making the mistake in imagining that things will happen in the way he

describes. Can the Minister confirm the majority of those coming into

Europe from Turkey are men. The majority come from countries other

than Syria which have a very poor human rights record in regards to

women. How can we be sure the mass migration taking place at the moment

will not impact on women's right, very hard-fought four on this

continent? We have a genuine humanitarian crisis in Syria. It is

now being exploited by people traffickers, who on this point my

honourable friend is correct, trying to encourage people of other

nationalities to come in and try and claim refugee status on the back of

genuine refugee claims and genuine refugee needs. That reinforces the

importance of having a robust system for processing individual claims, so

we can distinguish between people who have a well founded fear of

persecution, and people trying to move for economic reasons. The

reason why the United Kingdom is giving help is to strengthen the

capacity of the Greek system in particular to carry out those

processing and distinguishing between genuine refugees and those

trying to move for other reasons. During the negotiations on the EE

Turkey agreement, can my right honourable friend tell the House if

there have been discussions raised by Nato generals about Russia and

Syrian weaponisation of migration? A truly disgusting tactic. I think

what has been in everybody's mind is the fact that the bombing of

civilians by the Assad regime, with Russian support, in areas like

Aleppo, it is leading to the movement to even greater numbers of

people, initially into Turkey and 11 on, then across the GMC, to Europe.

That reinforces the need for us to turn this fragile cessation of

violence into a genuine peace process inside Syria, and political

transition offering the hype of rebuilding the country. I am reading

the statement clearly, the Turkish have some very good negotiators.

With the Minister, who has already outlined that our financial

contribution is 250 euros to the first 3 billion. There will be an

additional funding, we still be making a contribution to its? There

is no formal proposal tabled as of yet. The United Kingdom contributes

to EU measures agreed collectively by the EU. We have also paid

significantly more out in terms of our bilateral contributions to the

needs of refugees in Syria, and other countries in the

neighbourhood. I don't think we should be in the least ashamed of

this country's role in helping those people, who have been in desperate

need. One of the reasons I have been so proud to support this

government's commitment to the 0.7 target, it gives us the resources

and flexibility to respond to humanitarian crises speedily,

wherever they happen to be. Am I right in assuming that the captain

of the Royal Fleet auxiliary Mountsbay is able to

report the activities of people smugglers between Turkey and Greece.

To pick up people in distress, but not to stop people smugglers going

and not wishing to be picked up? Could I asked the Minister why that

is the case? More to the point, if those rules pertaining, what is

happening on the eastern seaboard of Turkey, which we are subsidising, by

the Turkish security forces stopping people smuggler vessels setting out

to Greece? Turkey does very large proportion of its coastguard

resource to the Aegean Sea already. For reasons I gave and answered to

an earlier question, intercepting every single one of the small boats

making a relatively short crossing to where the Greek islands is not as

straightforward as is sometimes suggested. I would refer my

honourable friend for greater detail to the statement my right honourable

friend the Secretary of State for Defence gate of the House on Monday.

The native activity is to provide monitoring, and reconnaissance to

both Turkish and Greek coastguard, and the EU expedition, to disrupt

the migrant boat. Interested to hear the Minister confirm that Britain

would not be required to be part of the Visa waiver arrangements, given

we are not part of Schengen. We are part of another common travel area

with the Republic of Ireland. What discussions will become it be having

with the Republic of Island in relation to these issues? My

honourable friend makes a reasonable point. Ireland is not in Schengen

like the United Kingdom, they are not obliged to participate in any

Visa liberalisation. We clearly keeping very close contact with the

authorities in Dublin, because of the existence of the common travel

area, we need to make sure we take account of each other's decisions. I

don't anticipate any difficulties. We are normally pretty much alike.

He's right to register this is an issue we need to have in mind. The

prize for perseverance and patience goes to Mr Marcus Fish. Thank you,

Mrs Debaty speaker, does my honourable friend appreciate access

to Visas for Turkish citizens may lead

immigration into Europe causing misery across the continent? I don't

think there is a necessary connection between illegal migration

and movement of people legally under some kind of Visa waiver system. The

reassurance I can give my honourable friend, the United Kingdom is

outside Schengen, we can, we do, and we shall continue to impose whatever

Visa requirements, and whatever checks on migration at our ports we

consider to be right for the safety, security and well-being of the

people of the United Kingdom. Border. Secretary of State for

Health, Mr Jeremy Hunt. -- order. Thank you madam Debaty speaker, with

permission I would like to inform permission I would like to inform

the House on steps the garment is making to secure safer seven-day

NHS. We're proud of the NHS, what it stands for the record numbers of

doctors and nurses working under this government. We pride comes a

simple ambition, that the NHS should offer the safest, higher scare

anywhere in the world. Today we are taking important steps to make that

possible. In December, following the problems that Southern health, I

updated the House improvements that were needed in learning from

mistakes. NHS professionals deliver excellent care to 650,000 patients

every day. We are determined to support them to improve still

further the quality of the care we offer. This government has

introduced a tough and transparent inspection regime, new GT of candour

to patients and parents who suffer harm. And to save lives lost by

sepsis. According to the health foundation, people suffering from

preventable diseases has dropped in preventable diseases has dropped in

a number of years. Twice we operate on the wrong part of a person's by

the week. Pioneering work has estimated that 3.6 of hospital

deaths have a 50% or more chance of being avoidable. 150 deaths every

week. We should remember that, despite their standards of safety

compare well to many other countries. I want England to lead

the world in offering the highest possible standards of safety in

health care. Today I'm welcoming to London health ministers and safety

experts from around the world for the first-ever ministerial level

summit on patient safety. I'm co-hosting the summit with the

German Health Minister, who will host a follow-up summit in Berlin

next year. Other guests included director general of the world health

organisation, the Chief Executive of the renowned Virginia Mason Hospital

in hospital. Anthony Francis QC. We will discuss many things, but in the

end, all the experts agree, no changes permanent without culture

change. That culture change needs to be about two things, openness and

transparency about where problems exist, and a proper learning culture

to put them right. With the new inspection regime for hospitals,

GP's surgeries and care homes, a raft of information published

online, we have made progress in transparency. As Sir Robert Francis'

report told us, it is still hard for doctors, nurses and other front line

staff to raise concerns in a supportive environment. Other

industries, particularly the airline and nuclear industries have learned

the importance of developing a learning culture, and not a blame

culture if safety is to be improved. Too often the fear of litigation for

professional consequences inhibits the openness and transparency we

need to learn from mistakes. Following the commitment I made to

Parliament at the time of the Morecambe Bay investigation, from

the 1st of April we will set up our first-ever independent health care

safety investigation Branch. Modelled on the air accident

investigation Branch which has been so successful in limiting fatalities

in the airline industry. It will undertake timely no blame

investigations. As with the air accident investigation Branch, we

will bring forward measures to bring legal protection to those who speak

honestly to investigators. The results of such investigations will

be shared with patients and families, he will therefore get to

the truth of what happened much more quickly. Unlike at present, those

investigations were not normally be used in mitigation and discipline

every proceedings, which the normal rules and processes will apply. The

safe space created will reduce blame culture, patients and families to

five, seven can learn from and stop repeating mistakes. I want to use

this reform to encourage much more openness to have the NHS response to

tragic mistakes. Families will get the truth faster, doctors will get

support and protection to speak out. The NHS as a whole will become

better at learning when things go wrong. When patients and families

who suffer, and what they want more than anything else is a guarantee no

one else will have two relive their agony. This new legal protection

will help us to promise them never again. Fundamental to the change is

developing a strong reporting culture in hospitals, where mistakes

are acknowledged, and not swept under the carpet. Today NHS

Improvement has published a learning from mistakes ranking of NHS Trusts,

drawing on data from the staff survey, and save the incident

reporting to show which trusts have the best reporting culture, and

which ones need to be so better at supporting staff who want to raise

concerns. This will be updated every year in a new state of hospital

quality report. Also containing trusts' estimates at their avoidable

mortality rates and will have a strong focus on learning and

improvement. The General medical Council and the nursing and

midwifery Council guidance is clear. Where doctors, nurses and midwives

admit what has gone wrong and apologise, the professional tribunal

should give them credit, just as failing to do so is likely to incur

serious sanction. The government remains committed to further reform

that would allow professional regulators more flexibility to

resolve cases without stressful tribunal 's. This change in culture

must extend to trust this and every procedures. NHS Improvement will ask

for a commitment to openness and learning reflected in all

disciplinary procedures, and ask for a charter to improve transparency so

staff can have clear expectations of how they will be treated if they

report clinical errors. Finally, from April 2018 we will

introduce medical examiners recommended in the Francis Report.

This will ring in a profound change in our ability to learn from deaths,

with each investigated by a coroner, giving grieving relatives the

opportunity to be at the heart of the process, flagging up concerns

about care two independent physicians, meaning we get to the

bottom of systemic failings of care more quickly. An NHS that learns

from mistakes, one of the world's largest organisations becoming the

world's largest learning organisation, that is how we will

offer the safest care and I command this statement to the House. --

commend this statement to the House. Can I thank the Secretary of State

for his statement and let me say at the outset that the operation

supports any measures that will improve safety in the NHS and make

it more open to learning from mistakes. However, we will also

provide robust opposition and scrutiny when we think the Secretary

of State's actions are having the reverse effect. So let me start by

setting out where we support the Government. On independent medical

examination, the Secretary of State will know that this is a reform that

these benches have long been pushing for. The previous Labour Government

legislated for the introduction of medical examiners in 2009, following

"re-into the crimes of Harold Shipman. The call to introduce

medical examiners was then repeated in the Francis Report and the

Morecambe Bay investigation. The report last year said this: we

cannot and -- understand why this has not yet been implemented in

full. Whilst we welcome the implementation of medical examiners,

it is concerning that it now appears to have been delayed until April 20

18. Can the Secretary of State Sehwag process in this -- progress

in this area is so slow and will he be consider that, given that April

2018 is more than two years ago? Can he also say how this will be funded

as Jamaat local Government is facing further cuts over the coming years

and whilst it is my understanding that local authorities will be

reimbursed for setup cost, I believe they will have to collect fees to

fund the service. How will this work in practice? Is the Secretary of

State confident that local Government, at a time when it is

already having to do more for less, will be able to take on the role of

administering this process? We also support the changes to the General

medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council guidance that the

Health Secretary says he is announcing today which will

recognise the importance of an apology. But it is unclear how this

is different on the new guidance which came into effect last August.

Indeed, the GMC first announced plans to change their guidance in

this way over a year ago. Can the Health Secretary say how his

announcement today differs from plants which were already in place?

On the learning from mistakes leak, can be Secretary of State say how

those 32 trusts who have a poor reporting culture will be supported

to improve? We know from listening to the testimonies of the mother of

one patient that the learning culture in some trusts is just not

good enough. I know from listening to my own constituents that the

fight to get mistakes recognise is only part of the battle. They also

want to know that the failures they have experienced will never happen

to anyone else and yet, all too often, they are faced with a system

which seems as if it simply struggles to learn. Does the

Secretary of State except he needs to do much more to develop a

positive learning culture in the NHS and how, in practical terms, will he

support clinicians and managers to improve services? Go to any health

trust and you will find a director of finance, nonexecutive directors

with financial expertise, but he will rarely find the same attention

paid to quality. Does he agree that the board needs someone whose focus

is not short-term firefighting but someone who will coordinate and

drive forward quality? I will always support sensible steps to improve

safety and transparency in the delivery of health services but what

I can't do is stand here today and pretend that other actions taken by

this Government won't have a detrimental effect on patient care.

The Health Secretary's kamikaze approach to the junior doctor

contract means that no matter how this dispute ends, he will have lost

the goodwill of staff on which the NHS survives. How can he stand here

and talk about patient safety when it is him and him alone who is to

blame for the current industrial action for the destruction of staff

morale and for the potential exodus of junior doctors to the southern

hemisphere? And how, Madam Deputy Speaker... Order. Thank you. And I

ask him, how can he stand here and say he wants the NHS to deliver the

highest standard of care anywhere in the world when the people he depends

upon to deliver that care to patients have said, enough is

enough? And how can he talk about patient safety when he knows that

his ?22 billion worth of so-called efficiency savings in the next four

years will be to job cuts and heap more pressure upon a service which

is about to break? Madam Deputy Speaker, I know the Health Secretary

has been shy about visiting the NHS front line in the last few months

but speak to anyone who has had any contact with the NHS and the message

you will hear is clear. The financial crisis facing the NHS is

putting patient care at risk. The independent -- the independent King

's fund recently said this: three years on from Robert Francis's

report into mid Staffs, which emphasises that safe staffing was

the key to maintaining quality of care, the financial meltdown in the

NHS now means that the policy is being abandoned. That is simply not

good enough. For those people who have experienced failures of care,

for those staff who are working in environments so pressurised that

they fear for the quality of care that they are able to deliver, the

Health Secretary needs to get his head out of the sand. I say this to

him: measures to investigate and identify harm are all well and good,

but there needs to be action to prevent harm from happening in the

first place. Fund the NHS adequately, staff it properly and

you might just give it a fighting chance. The honourable lady had the

chance to be constructive. I do welcome her commitments to a safer

NHS but we need actions, not just words from the Labour Party, if they

are to be believed that they want to improve care. Patients and their

families will have noticed that when it came to the big test for Labour

as to -- as to whether to back honourable patients who need a seven

day NHS or the BMA who oppose it, they have chosen the union. Let me

remind the House what the founder of the NHS said about the BMA. A small

body of politically poisoned people have decided to stir up a much -- as

much emotion as they possibly can. They have misrepresented the nation

of the call and they will call. He would have wanted a high standard of

care for everyone across the week and so should she. She also

challenged the Government on safety, so let's look at the facts. Under

this Government, MRSA under this deed to present. Record numbers of

the public say there care is safe, the proportion suffering from the

major causes of problems under -- down by 50%, 11 trusts put into

special care. Compare that, before she gets on her high horse, with

Labour's record. Avoidable deaths at mid Staffs, Basildon and many other

trusts. Care is bad we had to put 27 hospitals into special measures.

Contracts that reduced weekend cover in our hospitals passed by the last

Government. They made the seven-day NHS harder. We are trying to put

that right. She stood on a platform to put ?5.5 billion less into the

NHS each year than this Government. We are putting more resources into

the NHS. A strong NHS needs a strong economy and Labour had better

remember that. Let's look at some of her other points. What I said about

the GMC and NMC guidance, having said that it would change, was that

that guidance has now changed and it was clear that people would be given

credit in tribunals for being open and honest when things have gone

wrong. She challenged me about the timings for the introduction of

medical examiners. The shipment enquiry's third report recommended

medical examiners in 2003. Labour failed to implement that over seven

years. In six years, we are implementing it, which is what I

announced to date. I am confident that there will not be additional

burdens on local Gutman. -- Government. She talked about

supporting the trusts which do not have the right reporting culture.

That is what we are doing to day. We have not just published the names of

the trust that do not have a good reporting culture but we have

published the names of those that do. Those trusts that are struggling

with this can learn from them. She says I need to do more. With

respect, the measures we have taken on openness and transparency and

putting quality at the heart of what the NHS does and needs to stand for

go a lot further than any thing we saw under the last Labour

Government. I would just say this to her, it does say rather a lot that

on the day this Government has organised a summit with experts from

all over the world on how to make hospitals safer, the Labour Party is

lining up with unions against safer seven-day services. I urge her to

choose the more difficult path of reform that will help make our NHS

the safest health care provider in the world. What a shame the lady on

the front bench couldn't have taken the opportunity to condemn the

strikes and supporting unions and not the patients will not impress

anyone. I welcome the setting up of the health care safety investigation

Branch and the medical examiners. This will contribute better results

and better outcomes to the health service. The Secretary of State has

taken a personal interest in sepsis, Madam Deputy Speaker, in particular

responding to the UK sepsis trust. In particular, the Mead family who

lost their son and other relatives of patients who have died from

sepsis. He knows that the ombudsman report was back in September 2013

and it contained many recommendations, including

particularly the request for a public awareness campaign which

would potentially save lives. With the Secretary of State perhaps tell

the House what progress he has made with this because these relatives

who are campaigning seem to have been waiting a long time for this

public awareness campaign that they believe will help them?

I would like to thank my right honourable friend for her

campaigning on sepsis. She does a fantastic job with the all-party

Parliamentary group. We announced a plan in January of last year, a

major area where we need to and increase knowledge inside and

outside the NHS. As I told the all-party group a couple of weeks

ago, we are now looking into the possibility of a public information

campaign. What we want to establish is whether that should be just about

that says, or it should be a more general public information campaign

to parents, so they can understand when they need to worry about a

fever, something very common amongst small children, for which there may

be other reasons apart from sepsis, meningitis being in this one. We are

doing the detailed work, we want to get it absolutely right, but I

commend her persistence for making sure we deliver in this area. I

would like to welcome the statement from the Secretary of State, I

welcomed the establishment of medical examiners, which we have had

in Scotland since last year. I would also ask why the delay of another

two years before it comes on stream? As it was a doctor, it was always

obvious to me. Someone actually reviewing deaths may have made the

difference. I would not underestimate the importance of

auditing, and learning from routine auditing, rather than

whistle-blowing. In Scotland we have the Scottish audit of surgical

mortality in the 1990s, it showed people dying you have not had a

sufficiently senior surgeon in their case. That was discussed with the

profession and practice change. Future years showed a consultant

surgeon on the and a junior anaesthetist. It identified the lack

of high dependency nursing units for the sickest patients. Working with

audit like that, working with professionals, as we have done,

coming up for 20 years would have allowed an evolution of a stronger,

safer seven-day emergency service. I will again: the Secretary of State

to commit to looking at, if you like, a surgical approach. The

things that are missing, access to scans, radiology. Perhaps more

senior review and senior involvement. This is not junior

doctors, it is not blanket. Also we do need to look at the ratio of

staff, Frances and other researchers showing the importance of nursing

staff. Staff who do not have a minute to stop and think will make

mistakes, and will not have time to report them. We need to make it

easy, people need time to minimise mistakes, and there needs to be that

culture. I would make a final claim, the Secretary of State is offering

more support to whistle-blowers. Perhaps review and reconciliation of

those badly treated in the past may give people more confidence that if

they step up and report something significant, they will not be hung

out to dry as is been the case in the past. I would contrast the tone

of her response, and I by no means agree with everything she says, but

the tone of the response from that from the Shadow Health Secretary,

because she makes important points. On medical examiners, it is not the

case we have delayed it. In the last parliament we have pilots, so we

could understand exactly how they would work. It is relevant to the

other point about auditing, which I agree. Medical examiners will be

able to look for are expected for unexplained patterns in death. The

vast majority of deaths are routine, predictable and expected. They will

be able to identify looking at auditing tools, where there are

things to worry about. That is White will be important next step. With

respect to whistle-blowers, I reflect on what she says. What we're

trying to do today is to eliminate the need for it ever to get to the

point where someone had to become a whistle-blower. We want to make sure

people are supported to speak out about mistakes they have seen, made,

concerns they have. And be confident they will be listened to. The table

we are publishing today about the quality of reporting culture. A lot

of the raw data which allows us to rank the trusts comes from the NHS

staff survey, asking staff how valued they think they are, how safe

and easy it is to raise concerns. That is why it is a big step

forward. I thank my right honourable friend for his statement and taking

forward so many of the recommendations made in the public

and ministrations select committee report on investigating chemical

incidents in the NHS one year ago. Can I thank him particularly for

implementing the idea of creating a safe space, which has been a

controversial and difficult subject to discuss, some people think this

is about hiding things. In fact it is about getting people to speak

much more openly and freely than before. Could he say something about

how this will be implemented without primary legislation? I would like to

thank my right honourable friend, he and I talked to many times, and

fought very hard about how we can learn lessons from the air industry.

He is one of the people who came to me first, and said if we want to set

up an equivalent of the air accident investigation Branch, we need to

give the same legal protections people have when they are speaking

to that branch in the health care world. That is at the heart of the

statement we are making today. The point he makes about safe space is

very, very important. This is not about people getting off Scott free

if they make a terrible mistake. There is no extra protection for

anyone who breaks the law, commit gross negligence, does something

utterly irresponsible. Patients still have that protection. What

they gain from this is the comfort we will get to the truth much more

quickly, learning from mistakes more quickly as a result. The one thing

every single patient and very family always says is the most important

thing. Not about money, making sure the system learns from what went

wrong. We will make sure we construct the safe space concept

around this. I don't rule out extending it beyond the

investigation is done by the health and safety investigation Branch. In

welcoming the statement the minister has said, in Mike Syrians on the

General medical Council and the Health Select Committee, the biggest

cloud hanging over the culture of non-reporting in the National Health

Service is litigation. Last year cost the British taxpayer ?1.1

billion, ?395 million of that in costs for legal fees. Should we be

looking at a no-fault liability scheme inside the National Health

Service, encouraging cultural change? He's absolutely right to say

the effect of the fear of litigation has a very pernicious effect. We can

see this across the NHS, a huge drag on costs. We are reforming the way

litigation works. We have looked at what happens in other countries, in

particular Sweden has had a very gymnastic impact on the way they

have reduced maternity and neonatal injury, by creating a no blame

culture. I hope today's statement will make a step toward that, but we

will consider other changes to the patient process. Our honourable

friend for Ipswich and I had a very useful debate today in Westminster

Hall about criminal negligence cases. Clearly what the Secretary of

State has said this afternoon touches upon it. You may think I'm

being obtuse, the statement seems to relate to the internal investigation

of poor and mistaken conduct. Not in relation to the resistance or the

conduct of clinical negligence cases. I hope I'm wrong about that,

it seems to me what we don't want to do, despite the best intentions of

the Secretary of State comic identified in the statement, is to

make the settlement of just clinical negligence cases more difficult and

more expensive, and more scholastic. I read there was a need for the

court to give consent for the six lane use of information. Maybe this

morning's trails were not accurate and will not reflect what he's

intending. I wonder he could extend the internal and external reactions

to poor conduct? I shall do my best to my eminent and learned friend.

What we want to do is not affect the legal rights of anyone wishing to

litigate against the NHS. Because they feel they have been treated

badly. Those rights must remain. We will protect those rights. But we

want to make it easier to get to the truth of what happened, to learn

from the mistakes. The information uncovered by a health care safety

investigation branch will not be able to be used without a court

order. My belief is having the investigation is done by the branch

will speed up, or is quite likely to speed up court processes, because it

will establish on all sides in greater likelihood, agreement about

what happened. I hate it will be beneficial. If anyone wants to use

that evidence in litigation, they would have to regather it. The

reason for that, if doctors are worried about anything they say

could be used in litigation, they will be hesitant for we are

concerned they will be hesitant about speaking openly. That is the

defensive culture we're trying to change. I welcome the measures set

out in this statement. The Secretary of State will not be surprised to

hear I want to focus on safety mental health. The statement feels

quite focused on acute hospitals. At the summit, taking place today, will

there be a specialist focus on safety mental health? The Secretary

of State will remember last February we announced an ambition to achieve

zero suicides. He will be aware there has been a significant

increase in serious incidents and the reporting of unexpected deaths

and suicides. I don't know whether that whole project has stopped, will

he meet with me to talk about how we can achieve zero suicides, which has

been achieved in the city of the trick in the United States. The same

can happen if we have the same focus and ambition. Before the Secretary

of State answers that important question. I remind the House we have

a lot of business to get through today. Shorter questions and answers

would be welcomed by those waiting to speak in other debates. As ever I

commend my right friends interest in mental health. Can I reassure him

this is very much about what happens in mental health, and the area of

learning disabilities. Some of the thoughts here were prompted by what

happened at seven health. -- Southern Health, and it is vital we

investigate at unexpected deaths in mental health, and the measures we

take will go across those areas, and happy to meet and discuss the

laudable aim of zero suicides. May I sick do do state for this culture of

safety and learning. Can I ask that he looks into increasing the use of

exit interviews in the NHS? I have worked in the NHS and other aid

organisations, the NHS is the only one where I did not have an exit

interview. While we are decreasing in hope to decrease the use of

agency staff, it is also an option to do learn from those staff, and

learn good and bad practice. I applaud the world Summit on patient

safety, I hope you have invited St John eye Hospital from East

Jerusalem. If somehow that was forgotten, can you ensure they are

invited to the Berlin summit next year. I shall feel very prompted by

her question to investigate practice eight St John eye Hospital injuries

and. She makes a good point about eye hospitals, I would like to --

about exit interviews, I will take that away. The use of agency staff

does inhibit a learning culture, a large percentage of staff only in an

organisation on a temporary basis, not part of regular teams, not able

to transmit lessons learned, is why we have to deal with the

overreliance on agency staff in some parts of the NHS.

Can I ask the Secretary of State if he is going to list Morecambe Bay in

a litany of things to bash the last Government over the head he does so

while acknowledging that the situation continued actually for

sometime under his Government and is still taking sometime to turn

around. Now I want to wholeheartedly welcome his focus on patient safety

and his overall approach and pay tribute again to the Morecambe Bay

campaigners who have done so much to trigger this improvement. Does he

share my concerns over Trusts like Morecambe Bay which are being for a

number of reasons, including this issue of safety, being forced to use

a large number of agency staff and the difficulty in changing culture

when that staffing situation persists? Well, let me commend the

staff at Morecambe Bay who have been through a very difficult patch

thachlt Trust has exited special measures now. It's an exciting step

for the Trust. I think there has been a huge amount of work to make

that possible. But I think it feels to me like they've really turned a

corner and we should support the staff who have done a great job in

that. I think the issue he raises about

agency staff is very important. In particular, it is very challenging

to get permanent recruitment to more isolated places, not just Morecambe

Bay, but across the country, we find this is a problem. But I think

sometimes it can be false comfort to get in large numbers of agency

staff, not only are they extremely expensive, but they can't offer the

continuity of care that is at the heart of a safer culture and so we

have to find better ways to support places like Morecambe Bay to further

improve their safety. I congratulate my right honourable friend on a

range of initiatives, including the independent healthcare safety

investigation body but remind him that some of the problems we face

are staring him in the face, not less the difficulties in

Leicestershire with the am Buckingham Palace service and I

would like to thank member for Ipswich to discuss the problems that

occur when you have ambulances queuing to discharge patients and

his honourable friend talked about bringing in trouble-shooters to

resolve problems. Can he enlighten the House as to what he proposes to

do with these very evident problems that require little investigation,

they require action? I think we do have a system-wide

problem in Leicestershire and we are looking into that absolutely

urgently and I would like to thank him for raising that issue. He is

absolutely right, when we talk about safety and we talk about being open

about mistakes that has to apply to the ambulance service as much as any

other part of the NHS. Can I also welcome your statement as

well to the House today and I welcome in particular your

commitment to building a safer 7-day NHS in Northern Ireland we have

announced a 1200 new nurses, 300 new professionals, extra money for

mental healthcare and extra money to address waiting lists in Northern

Ireland to build a safer NHS seven days. In your statement you referred

to learning from mistakes and the need for extension of disciplinary

procedures, openness to learning and transparency. Can I ask what

discussions the Minister has had with my Northern Ireland Assembly

Minister Simon Hamilton in relation to ensuring this system can be

replicated in Northern Ireland and other regional Assemblies and

administrations across the whole of the UK of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland? Well, my colleague, the hospitals Minister is going to have

those discussions with the northern I shall health Minister. But he is

right, if we are going to have a learning culture -- Northern Irish.

It needs to be across the UK, not just within England and that's why I

welcome the discussions with the Scottish NHS and the Welsh NHS.

There are things we can learn from each other and we should be

open-minded in doing so. We must all strive to improve safety and quality

in the NHS. But the health foundation report that the Secretary

of State referred to quoted 40% of patients saying there were too few

nurses to care for them. This is three years after the Francis

Report. If the Government says that the NHS must learn more, what is the

Government doing to learn from the inquiries that have been held? Well,

quite a lot, for example, increasing the number of nurses by more than

10,000 since then. So that we can make sure that we don't have a

problem with safety on our wards by more than 10,000 since the Francis

Report was published. Because we recognise that it's incredibly

important not to have short-staffed wards and we are making more reforms

this parliament to make sure that we can recruit even more nurses and

that will be something that I think will be good to have some support

from Labour for. Can I congratulate my right honourable friend for his

statement although I hope that it draws from experience from other

healthcare economies as well as from the aerospace sector. When things go

wrong it's right that the NHS is frank about it and where necessary

compensates people for what may be long-term management issues.

However, currently, negligence settlements are based upon provision

in the private sector and do not anticipate necessarily that people

will be treated and managed in the NHS which means that the service

effectively pays twice for mistakes. As he seeks to close the Simon

Stevens spending gap that's something perhaps he might wish to

reflect on. I would be grateful if he could say to what extent he

thinks excessive negligence claims are influenced by the pervase way in

which they're currently calculated? I think there are things that

someone independently looking at our current system might say are

difficult to understand. One of them is the point that he makes. Another

is the point that we tend to give bigger awards to wealthier families

because we take into account the family income when we make these

awards, some of the time. So I think this is an area that we are looking

at. The only thing I would say is that we are cautious about reducing

the legal rights of patients to secure a fair settlement when

something has gone wrong because I think in the end this is about doing

the right thing for patients and I think the most effective way, which

I know he would agree with, if we want to reduce these large

litigation bills is to stop the harm happening in the first place and

that's what today is all about. If anybody should be learning from

the mistakes in the health service, it should be the Secretary of State

for health. I have been down to the picket line today as I have on every

single occasion. I can tell him that it's hardening. There are more

people on that picket line today at St Thomas than I have seen in all

the months in this strike began. I am a bit of an expert on picket

lines. I know what it's like. Quite frankly, the biggest mistake he's

made is to think he can get away with imposing a seven-day week on

the hospital doctors and everybody else that works in the health

service because he wants to avoid proper premium payments, when I

worked in the coal mines, miners got double pay on Sundays. They got

time-and-a-half all day Saturday. It's time he recognised, not just

hospital doctors, but nurses, radiologists and all the others that

would have to work a seven-day week, should all be paid the proper money,

otherwise pack the job in and then he will be doing a service to the

whole of the National Health Service. So, the proposals that we

are making for doctors will see them receiving higher premium rates than

lower paid nurses, higher premium rates than lower paid paramedics,

higher premium rates than lower paid healthcare assistants. I thought he

was someone who campaigned for the lower paid. Let me say to him, the

day that I stop this job will be the day I stop doing the right thing for

patients and he has constituents who need a seven-day NHS. I have

constituents who need a seven-day NHS. This Government will be there

for those constituents and will do the right thing.

Order! Thank you. Can I congratulate the Secretary of State on his

statement this afternoon and welcome the culture change he is putting

through in the NHS. Because my experience of working in the NHS on

a number of - under under a number of governments is that where

mistakes happen it was always a scapegoat was identified and it was

thought the problem was dealt with. That's why people were reluctant to

report problems. Often it's not one individual. It's a system of

failure. We need to learn from that. I very much welcome the Secretary of

State's comments on that. What relatives and patients have said to

me, they don't just want the problem identified, they want to make sure

it never happens again which is exactly what the Secretary of State

has said. Can I also comment on what the Shadow Secretary of State, I

chaired a public health - primary care seminar this morning with GPs,

nurses, doctors and pharmacists... I am sure the honourable ladiy will

quickly come to her question, we are going to run out of time. I will be

very quick. They are fed up of the NHS being talked down by members of

the - there was a plea to showcase the good work that's happening in

our NHS today. Thank you. It's so good to have someone with nursing

experience in this House. She makes an important contribution which I

hope she will make for many years to come because of her experience. She

knows what it's like on the frontline and why it's important to

get this culture change. She also knows how important it is not to run

down the NHS which is doing extremely well. Last week I received

an e-mail which was frankly heart-breaking. My constituent's

84-year-old father, a proud and dignified man was admitted to

hospital and had to wait with stroke symptoms to are 14 hours with a bed.

She found him in bed wearing only clothes on his top half, he needed

the toilet... Order. The honourable lady will always quickly come to her

question I am sure. This was no dignified way to treat this man.

Will the Secretary of State agree to have an urgent investigation into

safe staffing levels because the nursing staff told her they didn't

have time to fulfil his basic nursing needs?

I am more than happy to look into that case and that is exactly the

kind of case that we are trying to stop with the measures that we are

putting forward today. Can I congratulate my right honourable

friend for again making sure it's patient healthcare andout comes that

are at the forefront of his thinking and that of the professional health

service who do such a brave job and can sometimes be caught in the

crossfire. Does he agree that comments from people on the

frontline protecting the doctors strike, like this, who started a

Facebook saying I hate the Conservatives... I will leave it

there, I don't want to offend you. They don't care about healthcare,

they're interested in more political gain. This I am afraid is the

problem with some elements in the BMA, they're putting politics ahead

of patients. We have heard today it's the problem in the Labour

Party, as well. Thank you. Action on the Review is

very much welcome. There is so many cases I could cite, when a junior

doctor reported bullying, black-listing and now can only work

as a locum, when he wrote to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of

State refused to engage, listen and learn from his experience. Learning

cultures have to start at the top with you, Secretary of State. Will

the Secretary of State now set out how he is going to address

retrospective cases of whistle-blowing where people have

been subject to discrimination? I hope that she's not quoting

selectively from my reply to the person concerned. When people do

raise issues of patient safety with me I usually refer them to the CQC

who are able to do a proper reply and I would be surprised if I didn't

do that in this particular case. What I would say about retrospective

cases is that they are particularly difficult, much as we want to help,

because it is very difficult constitutionally to unpick the

decisions made by courts. What we are trying to do is to separate

employment grievances from safety grievances and make that the way we

solve these difficult situations. I think like many MPs I have come

across cases where this approach would help enormously and I thank

the Secretary of State for his statement today. The same CQC report

that praised staff and clinicians at the Worcestershire acute Trust for

their good and outstanding care raised concerns about the management

and about safety at the hospital's partly as a result of too many

interim managers and a lack of ability to address and learn from

mistakes that have been made. Can I urge the Secretary of State to do

everything in his power and work with all the relevant organisations

to put the long-term permanent management in place at that Trust so

we can take things forward and make patients safer? He speaks wisely.

One thing That's Britain been a mistake of -- one thing that's been

a mistake of successive governments han been a short-termist approach to

NHS managers where we ourselves have looked for a scapegoat when

something has gone wrong and a target missed or whatever, and not

backed people making long-term transformations and that's something

that we need to think about hard. But I thank the Secretary of State

for his statement and the work he's done and also paid tribute to those

who have campaigned to bring patient safety to the forefront, many from

tragic experiences they've had. What work is being done to make sure that

medical schools and nursing schools have patient safety on the

curriculum? We have looked at the curriculum very carefully and the

thing we want to do is personally make sure people understand their

responsibilities to speak out if they see mistakes and things going

wrong, but also to help people understand that this might not be

the prevailing culture in the hospital they go to and that we are

looking to a new generation of doctors and nurses to help change

this culture for the better. I'd also like to welcome my right

honourable friend's statement today. He will be aware of the tragic death

of three-year-old Johnny at Stafford Hospital, having met his parents,

they have been looking for answers to their questions for some time.

Can he confirmed that this do health care safety investigation Branch has

announced today it will put families like Johnny's, give them the

opportunity to get the answers they have been looking for? I would like

to thank her for her support for Johnny's parents, this is a very sad

case, but the independent investigator in that case spoke

about the closed culture he encountered at two different trusts

and that is a very good example of the change in culture we need. I

have worked with them and I hope we can secure a second inquest on his

death so we can get to the truth eventually. It will be too late, but

we want to get there eventually. Jason McCartney. As the Secretary of

State is aware, my local sea GC starts a consultation next Wednesday

on proposals to downgrade A, does he agree that patient safety must be

the priority in the sessions and not the ruinous PFI deal signed at

Halifax hospital in 1998 which is the backdrop to these appalling

plans? No one fights harder for his constituents on health care matters

than he does and I commend him for that. The process will be led by

clinicians but he is right, patient safety must be of paramount

importance. We have one of the worst still birth rates in the developed

world, and everyone is a tragedy, and we must do all we can to avoid

those, especially when half are preventable. As the co-chair of the

new group on baby loss, would he agree with me that it is only by

learning the lessons on everything that we can get the number down by

20% at the end of the Parliament and by half the year after? He is

absolutely right and other like to thank him for his work in this area.

Maternity in general, stillbirths, natal deaths, natal injuries, this

is the area where I hope we make the most rapid early progress in

developing this new learning culture because it seems there is so much to

be gained. We can be the best in the world, but the truth is we are a

long way down the international league tables in this area and none

of us want that for the NHS and there is real commitment to turn

that around. The prize for perseverance and patience goes to Mr

Mark Spencer. I'm grateful, even if my knees are not. Can I say to the

Secretary of State, congratulate him on protecting a space for doctors to

be honest and upfront when things go wrong and also to strike the balance

so relatives and people who suffer wrong swim the NHS get to the bottom

of what went wrong and why it won't happen again in future -- wrong is

in the air chess. I would like to thank him. That is the heart of what

we want to do and he has been very closely involved in the improvements

we want to make in his local trust. If his knees are in pain, I can

recommend a very good GP surgery in his constituency that he showed me

in the last election campaign. Order. Point of order. Dot. Fox. I

wonder if you can help clarify what outstanding issue from today's

urgent question. In the head of government statement which was

issued in the name of our Prime Minister, it says very clearly it is

to accelerate the implementation of the Visa liberalisation road map

with all member states with a view to lifting the Visa requirements for

Turkish citizens by at the latest the end of 2016, but this does not

apply to the United Kingdom. However, it cannot apply to all

states and not the United Kingdom, so one of the versions must be

incorrect. I wonder if we might get a written verification for the

government as to which of these events in question is the truth. The

House knows that I'm not responsible for the content of the statement

made earlier today by the Minister. The chair is responsible for making

sure that members on the backbenches have satisfactory answers and full

answers from ministers and I'm quite certain that those on the Treasury

bench will have taken note of what the right honourable gentleman has

said and will act accordingly. Presentation of Bill, now.

Regulation of sale and ownership bill. 22nd of April, 2016. Order. We

now come to the ten minute rule motion. Les Savill Roberts. I beg to

move that leave the given to bring in a bill to consolidate offences