25/01/2018

0:00:00 > 0:00:00He raises a very important issue. He might want to seek an adjournment

0:00:00 > 0:00:04debate to get a clear answer from ministers.

0:00:04 > 0:00:09THE SPEAKER: Statement, the Secretary of State for Defence.

0:00:09 > 0:00:14Secretary Gavin William son.Thank you, Mr Speaker.

0:00:14 > 0:00:19I undertook to return to the House at the earliest opportunity to

0:00:19 > 0:00:24update honourable and Right Honourable members on the programme

0:00:24 > 0:00:28to modernise defence, which the Ministry of Defence will be

0:00:28 > 0:00:34conducting in the months ahead. Following agreement of the high

0:00:34 > 0:00:38level findings of the national capability review by the National

0:00:38 > 0:00:41Security Council, I have agreed with the Prime Minister and Chancellor

0:00:41 > 0:00:47that we should take forward its recommendations for a programme of

0:00:47 > 0:00:51further work to modernise defence, to deliver better military

0:00:51 > 0:00:57capability and value for money in a sustainable and affordable way. This

0:00:57 > 0:01:02is essential if defence is to make its full contribution to national

0:01:02 > 0:01:13security. For 2015 national skurt strategy and the SDR set out a clear

0:01:13 > 0:01:18ambition to ensure the Armed Forces can tackle the threats that we face.

0:01:18 > 0:01:23It also proposed important new policy initiatives, including a

0:01:23 > 0:01:29stronger international approach. Pursuit of innovation, modernise

0:01:29 > 0:01:32personnel policies and defence making a bigger contribution to our

0:01:32 > 0:01:38national prosperity. And we're making real strides to

0:01:38 > 0:01:42unlock greater efficiency and productivity.

0:01:42 > 0:01:46Protecting the United Kingdom and our people remains our first

0:01:46 > 0:01:52priority and responsibility. As the threats we face become more

0:01:52 > 0:01:56complex and intertwined we will need to work ever more closely with our

0:01:56 > 0:02:02Nato allies. We can also expect to remain

0:02:02 > 0:02:05actively involved with our partners in the Gulf in tackling shared

0:02:05 > 0:02:10threats to our security and the Asia Pacific region will become more

0:02:10 > 0:02:15important to us in the years ahead. The Ministry of Defence is making a

0:02:15 > 0:02:20major contribution to our prosperity. Both as we procure the

0:02:20 > 0:02:24equipment our Armed Forces deserve and support defence exports, in

0:02:24 > 0:02:32which there have been recent successes, most notably the £6

0:02:32 > 0:02:37billionTy foon contract agreed with Qatar. Significant events last week,

0:02:37 > 0:02:43the callous terrorist attacks in London and Manchester and the major

0:02:43 > 0:02:47storms which ravaged dependencies in the Caribbean. They are reminders of

0:02:47 > 0:02:52our wider responsibilities. We need to contain threats that have their

0:02:52 > 0:02:58origin overseas and be prepared to react swiftly and effectively when

0:02:58 > 0:03:07crisis arise. As we identified in 2015, this requires the force we are

0:03:07 > 0:03:11building to be versatile and agile. It will need to be capable of

0:03:11 > 0:03:17operating in all five domains, land, sea, air, space and cyber. It will

0:03:17 > 0:03:21need to be international by design, routinely exercising and operating

0:03:21 > 0:03:26with allies and partners. It will need to be credible and capable of

0:03:26 > 0:03:31operating against state and none state threats. Normally not alone,

0:03:31 > 0:03:38but with allies, such as Nato and our partners, but always having the

0:03:38 > 0:03:42ability to act on our own if and when that is required.

0:03:42 > 0:03:49And it must be able to contribute to our national security at home,

0:03:49 > 0:03:54working with the police and other national security organisations.

0:03:54 > 0:03:59Whilst the major elements of our plans for joint force 2025 remain

0:03:59 > 0:04:04the right ones, in order to secure competitive advantage over our

0:04:04 > 0:04:10potential adversaries we need to ensure we can move quickly, to

0:04:10 > 0:04:14further strengthen our capabilities in priority areas and reduce

0:04:14 > 0:04:18resources we devote elsewhere. The Government commissioned the national

0:04:18 > 0:04:22security capability review to the sure we have a policy and plans to

0:04:22 > 0:04:27impl I meant our own national security strategy, ensuring our

0:04:27 > 0:04:30investment in national security capabilities is as joined up,

0:04:30 > 0:04:34effective and as constituent as possible to address current national

0:04:34 > 0:04:39security challenges. A report will be published later in

0:04:39 > 0:04:48the spring. As my Right Honourable friend, the Prime Minister, said, in

0:04:48 > 0:04:53her recent Lord mayor's banquet speech, the threats and risks and

0:04:53 > 0:04:58challenges are more complex and intertwined and have developed in

0:04:58 > 0:05:03areas and ways that we broadly expected but as a much greater pace

0:05:03 > 0:05:08than was foreseen. The defence budget is £36 billion

0:05:08 > 0:05:13this year. That's the fifth largest defence budget in the world and it

0:05:13 > 0:05:18will increase by £1 billion a year, so that it will almost be £40

0:05:18 > 0:05:26billion by 2021. The UK Government remains one of a few countries to

0:05:26 > 0:05:30exceed Nato's 2% spending target. This Government has committed to

0:05:30 > 0:05:34increase the defence budget by at least 0.5% above inflation every

0:05:34 > 0:05:43year. However, we must do more to ensure that we use our resources

0:05:43 > 0:05:47effectively and deliver the efficiencies the department

0:05:47 > 0:05:52committed to. So they can be reinvested in the capabilities that

0:05:52 > 0:05:55we require for our Armed Forces it is for this reason that I agreed

0:05:55 > 0:05:59with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to launch the modernising

0:05:59 > 0:06:04defence programme, so that we can strengthen and modernise the Armed

0:06:04 > 0:06:09Forces, to meet the threats that were identified. Modernising defence

0:06:09 > 0:06:16will allow us to deliver better military capability and value for

0:06:16 > 0:06:20money in a sustainable and affordable way. It will ensure

0:06:20 > 0:06:23defence capabilities compliment other national security capabilities

0:06:23 > 0:06:29in the most effective way. I'm determined to realise this goal

0:06:29 > 0:06:33through a modernised, more productive and more effective joint

0:06:33 > 0:06:37force, which can deter threats more effectively and ensure we can

0:06:37 > 0:06:41deliver what is required of defence today and succeed in any future

0:06:41 > 0:06:48conflicts. Turning this approach into reality will be my key goal for

0:06:48 > 0:06:51the modernising defence programme. This programme will involve four

0:06:51 > 0:06:56strands of work. The first three will opt miez how the MOD is

0:06:56 > 0:07:01organised and is operating. Identify further constituencies and ways to

0:07:01 > 0:07:05be more productive, including through an aggressive programme of

0:07:05 > 0:07:09business modernisation and improve our performance on the commercial

0:07:09 > 0:07:15and industrial issues. The fourth strand will look at the capabilities

0:07:15 > 0:07:18that defence requires to contribute to our three national security

0:07:18 > 0:07:23objectives today and in the future. But most importantly, understanding

0:07:23 > 0:07:29the threats and the ever changing threats that this country faces.

0:07:29 > 0:07:33I'm determined to use the modernising defence programme to

0:07:33 > 0:07:38ensure that defence can make its full contribution to our national

0:07:38 > 0:07:42security on a sustainable basis. This is a programme of work that I

0:07:42 > 0:07:47will speak to honourable and Right Honourable members on a very regular

0:07:47 > 0:07:51basis and I will keep this house updates as decisions are made.

0:07:51 > 0:07:56In the mean time, I would warmly welcome any contributions,

0:07:56 > 0:08:01honourable and Right Honourable members would like to make. I and my

0:08:01 > 0:08:04department will be consulting beyond this House as this programme of work

0:08:04 > 0:08:10gets under way in the weeks ahead. Protecting our national security and

0:08:10 > 0:08:14the safety of the British people, both at home and abroad remains the

0:08:14 > 0:08:21Government's first priority. And make no mistake, the world is

0:08:21 > 0:08:26becoming a more dangerous place. We cannot afford to shy away from this

0:08:26 > 0:08:31reality, nor can we take our security for granted. But even more

0:08:31 > 0:08:36than that, in a post Brexit world, Britain must continue to champion

0:08:36 > 0:08:41the global good. It must continue to reach out to seize global

0:08:41 > 0:08:46opportunities and deal with global threats. Our history teaches us that

0:08:46 > 0:08:51we can't have prosperity without security, to protect that

0:08:51 > 0:08:55prosperity, we must have Armed Forces primed and ready to tackle

0:08:55 > 0:08:58the challenges to come.

0:09:01 > 0:09:06Thank you very much. I am sure I speak for members across the House

0:09:06 > 0:09:11in paying tribute to dedication of our Armed Forces. Now, can I thank

0:09:11 > 0:09:13the Secretary of State for his statement and for advanced sight of

0:09:13 > 0:09:18it? Can I respectfully day, Mr Speaker that the way in which this

0:09:18 > 0:09:22has been arranged be I the Government has been shambolic from

0:09:22 > 0:09:26start to finish. Utterly discourteous to honourable and Right

0:09:26 > 0:09:30Honourable members, some of whom may be elsewhere today because of

0:09:30 > 0:09:33explicit and repeated assurances by the Government that this statement

0:09:33 > 0:09:38would come on Monday. I am sure you've noted, Mr Speaker, the

0:09:38 > 0:09:41members first heard news of this announcement when it was briefed out

0:09:41 > 0:09:44to journ liteses on Tuesday afternoon. Without so much as a

0:09:44 > 0:09:48written statement in this place. Then we had the complete farce of

0:09:48 > 0:09:51yesterday when the Government indicated it would make a statement,

0:09:51 > 0:09:57then it was off, then it was on and finally on again with a full update

0:09:57 > 0:10:03promised on Monday. Clearly, Mr Speaker, the new facility to combat

0:10:03 > 0:10:10fake news is badly needed. We were talking about 7o clock, I think, you

0:10:10 > 0:10:11know. Some people.

0:10:11 > 0:10:19Right. OK, let's... If I may proceed, OK.

0:10:19 > 0:10:23It doesn't fill me with much confidence, Mr Speaker, about the

0:10:23 > 0:10:28conduct of the review. Its origins have been so mired in chaos. Of

0:10:28 > 0:10:32course we do welcome the decision to separate out modernising defence

0:10:32 > 0:10:36programme from the national security review. But the decision to hold a

0:10:36 > 0:10:41separate Defence Review must not simply be an excuse to kick the

0:10:41 > 0:10:46difficult decisions facing the defence budget into the long grass.

0:10:46 > 0:10:49This week we heard grave warnings from the Chief of the General Staff

0:10:49 > 0:10:54about the threats that this country faces. And there's been growing

0:10:54 > 0:10:58concern that the Government's savage cuts to our nation's defences have

0:10:58 > 0:11:03left us ill equipped to respond to those threats. The many easture of

0:11:03 > 0:11:06this review will be in the detail. I hope the Secretary of State will be

0:11:06 > 0:11:10able to give us some specific answers today. So, turning to the

0:11:10 > 0:11:15most important question - will the review be fiscally neutral? We know

0:11:15 > 0:11:21that much of the concern with the NSCR was that it was being carried

0:11:21 > 0:11:27out within the same funding envop lol as the spend -- envelope as the

0:11:27 > 0:11:30Spending Review. If it shows it is necessary for the spending of our

0:11:30 > 0:11:35nation, will the Government up to the plate? Surely he must agree that

0:11:35 > 0:11:39it would be pointless to have a review that finds that we need to

0:11:39 > 0:11:42have additional equipment or increased personnel only for the

0:11:42 > 0:11:44Government to ignore that recommendation. You cannot do

0:11:44 > 0:11:49security on the cheap, Mr Speaker and it is high time the Government

0:11:49 > 0:11:54recognised this. And yet, the statement makes reference to further

0:11:54 > 0:11:58efficiencies being carried out as part of this review. Raising the

0:11:58 > 0:12:03spectre of yet further cuts. Crucially, how does this review fit

0:12:03 > 0:12:07into the work being done by the national security adviser? Are the

0:12:07 > 0:12:12recommendations that he may have made on defence, as part of the

0:12:12 > 0:12:17NSCR, to be carried into this review or is it a case of start from

0:12:17 > 0:12:23strach. When it comes to threat assessment will the programme and

0:12:23 > 0:12:27NSCR have a common view of what the most significant threats are? Will

0:12:27 > 0:12:35the planned numbers or targets for our Armed Forces change? If they do,

0:12:35 > 0:12:43there will be on-going restructuring? The will this review

0:12:43 > 0:12:48potentially include the cancellation or downscaling of procurement plans

0:12:48 > 0:12:54sf if so how will industry be involved in the process. What is the

0:12:54 > 0:12:59planned timetable for this review? When it will be published? It is

0:12:59 > 0:13:03vital personnel are not kept in limbo about their future but can get

0:13:03 > 0:13:09answers. This review represents an important opportunity for there to

0:13:09 > 0:13:12be a step change in for the defence policy. We all hope the Defence

0:13:12 > 0:13:16Secretary will use this chance to deliver real investment in our

0:13:16 > 0:13:23nation's defences and the resources that our Armed Forces so badly need.

0:13:28 > 0:13:32I take on board the honourable lady's comments about the

0:13:32 > 0:13:37organisational future statements and commit to improve on that, Mr

0:13:37 > 0:13:43Speaker. I also thank the honourable lady's of this review and the fact

0:13:43 > 0:13:48we have brought it about. She mentioned the chief of the General

0:13:48 > 0:13:54staff and his comments. I think it is important that the people that

0:13:54 > 0:13:59need our Armed Forces actually do have a voice and do speak about the

0:13:59 > 0:14:07threats this country faces. We have spent 20 years where we felt the

0:14:07 > 0:14:11threats this country faces have maybe disappeared and actually we've

0:14:11 > 0:14:16got used to not facing peer enemies. That isn't the world we live in

0:14:16 > 0:14:20today and I think it would be irresponsible if we didn't talk

0:14:20 > 0:14:24about those threats because the British people do have to understand

0:14:24 > 0:14:29the challenges that our nation faces and what the Armed Forces are facing

0:14:29 > 0:14:37on dealing with every single day. The honourable lady asked the

0:14:37 > 0:14:41question, is this aiming to be fiscally neutral as a review and no

0:14:41 > 0:14:46it isn't, it is looking at how we can actually get the Armed Forces

0:14:46 > 0:14:53that we need in order to deal with the threats we face. The Government

0:14:53 > 0:14:57is absolutely committed to delivering the very best Armed

0:14:57 > 0:15:01Forces and that is what so many members on this side of the House

0:15:01 > 0:15:06and on the opposite side of the House are equally committed to, and

0:15:06 > 0:15:10I very much hope you will continue to support the Ministry of Defence

0:15:10 > 0:15:14and the Armed Forces in the work we do to get the very best Armed Forces

0:15:14 > 0:15:21for future generations. And she asks as to when it will be published. My

0:15:21 > 0:15:27aim is to publish it in the summer. My hope is we will be publishing it

0:15:27 > 0:15:31before the House rises for summer recess. But I really would emphasise

0:15:31 > 0:15:38the fact we do want to hear people's views. The Armed Forces always need

0:15:38 > 0:15:43to change and evolve. She asked the question as to why I say about

0:15:43 > 0:15:48efficiencies. I think every organisation, every organisation in

0:15:48 > 0:15:52Government, should always be looking at how they can do things better and

0:15:52 > 0:16:03do things more efficiently I don't apologise for saying, because I

0:16:03 > 0:16:05think actually the Ministry of Defence can actually do things

0:16:05 > 0:16:08better. I want them to do better, I want them to be able to drive

0:16:08 > 0:16:11efficiencies so that money can be used in order to be put into the

0:16:11 > 0:16:13front line for our Armed Forces. Let's not be hesitant in coming

0:16:13 > 0:16:17forward with ideas and if the honourable lady has some ideas as to

0:16:17 > 0:16:24house these -- how she thinks this can be done better I will be always

0:16:24 > 0:16:28willing to listen to them, but once again I thank her for welcoming the

0:16:28 > 0:16:32review and look forward to working with her and all members of the

0:16:32 > 0:16:36House to try to make sure this review very much works for our Armed

0:16:36 > 0:16:44Forces.Mr Speaker, can I welcome my right honourable friend obviously to

0:16:44 > 0:16:50his place. Can I say I have sat sadly in this place for 25 years,

0:16:50 > 0:16:54and every single government brings forward another statement about

0:16:54 > 0:16:57modernising the Armed Forces and invariably ends up spending less

0:16:57 > 0:17:03money on the Armed Forces. I may urge my right honourable friend in

0:17:03 > 0:17:07the course of his conduct, can he please learn from some of the

0:17:07 > 0:17:12previous mistakes which have been made such as when we went into the

0:17:12 > 0:17:22Bosnia area and have a just-in-time approach which ended up with tanks

0:17:22 > 0:17:25left by the side of the road because we could not get to them in time.

0:17:25 > 0:17:32Can we make sure he does not repeat the nonsense of when people say

0:17:32 > 0:17:37modernise they actually mean cut.We will try to learn as many lessons as

0:17:37 > 0:17:42possible from history and I know my right honourable friend has a lot of

0:17:42 > 0:17:45personal experience of the Armed Forces and very much welcome his

0:17:45 > 0:17:50contribution in terms of the review going forward. We want to have a

0:17:50 > 0:17:56very best Armed Forces we can have. This isn't aimed as being some

0:17:56 > 0:18:00operation to take money off the Armed Forces, it's making sure we

0:18:00 > 0:18:04have the Armed Forces and give them the support we need and the

0:18:04 > 0:18:10recognition they do one of the most amazing jobs for our country, and

0:18:10 > 0:18:17that is what we hope to achieve as part of this review.Can I thank the

0:18:17 > 0:18:21Defence Secretary for his statement in advance but the public must

0:18:21 > 0:18:26understand the farce we went through yesterday to get this place. The

0:18:26 > 0:18:32statement was on, it was off, maybe on, definitely off, happening next

0:18:32 > 0:18:37week, and then we learn it's happening today so better late than

0:18:37 > 0:18:42never I suppose. Can I also say to the Secretary of State that we must

0:18:42 > 0:18:46stop reading about these reviews in the Times newspaper. He must

0:18:46 > 0:18:51endeavour to come to the House more often rather than allowing leaks to

0:18:51 > 0:19:02newspapers. I realise he's here now but members know exactly what I'm

0:19:02 > 0:19:05referring to. Can I ask a couple of questions on his statement. In

0:19:05 > 0:19:07relation to the announcement this week on his new disinformation unit,

0:19:07 > 0:19:13can he expand on that? If it is not to be fiscally neutral, can he

0:19:13 > 0:19:19confirmed that as a departure from what Sir Mark told the Defence

0:19:19 > 0:19:23Select Committee in a letter when he said it was fiscally neutral, and if

0:19:23 > 0:19:27not can members of the Armed Forces expect to pay rise when his review

0:19:27 > 0:19:33concludes? Can he tell us how the review will deal with Russian

0:19:33 > 0:19:37activity in and over the North Atlantic. Will he agreed to meet

0:19:37 > 0:19:41with myself to discuss that in particular? And will he commit to

0:19:41 > 0:19:45when the reporting comes in the summer he will handle this a lot

0:19:45 > 0:19:50better than when he handled it yesterday.The honourable gentleman

0:19:50 > 0:19:57seems to think the British public are really interested as to the

0:19:57 > 0:20:00tabling of when statements are. I think the British people are really

0:20:00 > 0:20:05in trusted in the fact this Government is acting to make sure

0:20:05 > 0:20:10our Armed Forces have the resources they need. That is what they are

0:20:10 > 0:20:14interested in. What we are aiming to do in terms of this review, it isn't

0:20:14 > 0:20:20aiming to be fiscally neutral, which is why we brought it out of the

0:20:20 > 0:20:26capability review which was a separate review mechanism that Sir

0:20:26 > 0:20:31Mark, who is doing an amazing job in terms of work on that, had outlined

0:20:31 > 0:20:35it would be fiscally neutral but this has been something that has led

0:20:35 > 0:20:39on from the national security and capability review. I would be more

0:20:39 > 0:20:44than happy to meet with him and discuss some of the wider issues and

0:20:44 > 0:20:49concerns he has in the North Atlantic.Is my right honourable

0:20:49 > 0:20:53friend where he will have support of the whole House if he manages to

0:20:53 > 0:20:57secure additional funding for the precious this year and next year but

0:20:57 > 0:21:02then put the defence budget onto a more sustainable footing that allows

0:21:02 > 0:21:06our Armed Forces to tackle the increased threats they face without

0:21:06 > 0:21:13demoralising rumours of deep cuts. The words here are interesting and

0:21:13 > 0:21:19important, but what really matters in the end is money, more money.I'd

0:21:19 > 0:21:24like to thank my right honourable friend for all he has done for our

0:21:24 > 0:21:29Armed Forces. Without his work and campaigning, we wouldn't have been

0:21:29 > 0:21:34in a situation where we would have been having a rising budget today

0:21:34 > 0:21:37with the extra £4 billion worth of extra resources committed to our

0:21:37 > 0:21:44Armed Forces by the Government. I will certainly take on board his

0:21:44 > 0:21:48comments and I notice his article in the Telegraph today, which I thought

0:21:48 > 0:21:52set absolutely the right tone in terms of approach of how we take

0:21:52 > 0:21:58things forward. I hope I have the opportunity to sit down with him to

0:21:58 > 0:22:03discuss how we get the balance right and make sure we achieve everything

0:22:03 > 0:22:08that he has set out and built on for our Armed Forces over the past four

0:22:08 > 0:22:16years. We do need to look at getting additional resources for Armed

0:22:16 > 0:22:23Forces so that they have the capability to protect and truly

0:22:23 > 0:22:32defend Britain's global interests, both near and far.I have to save

0:22:32 > 0:22:37that my reaction to this much heralded and hokey Cokie statement

0:22:37 > 0:22:45is, is that it? Because the hands were very clearly the hands of

0:22:45 > 0:22:55Hammond. Will he therefore confirm whether it is still fiscally

0:22:55 > 0:22:58neutral? Why does it not say increases in security expenditure

0:22:58 > 0:23:08will not be at the expense of defence. Why won't he confirmed the

0:23:08 > 0:23:12winners are in fact the Treasury and their view that there are no votes

0:23:12 > 0:23:19in defence. And in spite of his warm words, well the real losers be our

0:23:19 > 0:23:24superb troops, excellent defence industry and defence of our nation?

0:23:24 > 0:23:28I do apologise if the right honourable gentleman didn't hear me

0:23:28 > 0:23:33but the aim is not for this programme to be... You know, there

0:23:33 > 0:23:37is into constraint on it being fiscally neutral. We are looking at

0:23:37 > 0:23:40what we can do and how we can deliver it to the best of ability.

0:23:40 > 0:23:44I'm grateful to the Chancellor and Prime Minister for the work they

0:23:44 > 0:23:49have done in terms of working towards the position where we can

0:23:49 > 0:23:53put forward this programme and we have the opportunity to look at the

0:23:53 > 0:24:01needs of our defence industry and establishment.I have every sympathy

0:24:01 > 0:24:05with the Secretary of State in terms of over the last two days when this

0:24:05 > 0:24:11was going to be announced, the old army motto knickers on knickers off

0:24:11 > 0:24:19that many of us are familiar with. Can I ask the Secretary of State, a

0:24:19 > 0:24:22number of colleagues including the right honourable member for

0:24:22 > 0:24:26Chingford have pointed out the crucial matter of money. 20 years

0:24:26 > 0:24:31ago the then Labour government carried out an enormous Strategic

0:24:31 > 0:24:35Defence Review which on the whole was well received but it was never

0:24:35 > 0:24:40funded. Has the Secretary of State got any confidence at all that his

0:24:40 > 0:24:50recommendations will actually be funded by the Treasury?The answer

0:24:50 > 0:24:53is yes, I very much hope the recommendations of the programme

0:24:53 > 0:24:59will be listened to very closely by the Prime Minister and the

0:24:59 > 0:25:04Chancellor, and the whole aim of doing this programme is to give the

0:25:04 > 0:25:08Armed Forces the opportunity to set clearly out a case of resources we

0:25:08 > 0:25:18need going forward.While the last 48 hours may have been somewhat

0:25:18 > 0:25:24chaotic and more concerned about seeing rumour and speculation

0:25:24 > 0:25:27undermining not only our global reputation because of the confidence

0:25:27 > 0:25:31of our serving personnel about their futures. Rumours about the Parachute

0:25:31 > 0:25:36Regiment merging with the Royal Marines, all of this has been

0:25:36 > 0:25:40nonsense. Can you give assurances we will stop seeing these rumours on

0:25:40 > 0:25:45the front page of the daily Times and that we will be informed about

0:25:45 > 0:25:49what's happening? And more importantly what's happening with

0:25:49 > 0:25:55the review, where is the threat assessment coming from? In terms of

0:25:55 > 0:25:58modernisation, can you give assurances of what the terms of

0:25:58 > 0:26:03references will be and when we will see them?This I think there's been

0:26:03 > 0:26:07an awful lot of speculation over the past few months and virtually all of

0:26:07 > 0:26:14it has been proved to be completely untrue. I continue to keep the House

0:26:14 > 0:26:19updated, as I promised to in my statements, and I will be doing

0:26:19 > 0:26:23everything I can to make sure the Armed Forces as well as this House

0:26:23 > 0:26:29are listened to as we developed the programme going forward.Going

0:26:29 > 0:26:36forward, things like cyber, Intel and asymmetric warfare and drones

0:26:36 > 0:26:41will touch both upon security and defence. How is he going to

0:26:41 > 0:26:48delineate the review from the one he has announced and will lead?We will

0:26:48 > 0:26:55be continuously working very close with Sir Mark and all the work

0:26:55 > 0:27:03that's being done. It would be crazy to do that. What the review

0:27:03 > 0:27:08identified was that actually more work needed to be done in terms of

0:27:08 > 0:27:11the Ministry of Defence budget because if it was going to be

0:27:11 > 0:27:15fiscally neutral, that wouldn't have been possible to be able to deliver

0:27:15 > 0:27:18in that way. We will be working closely with the Cabinet office to

0:27:18 > 0:27:25make sure that everything that we have done sits within the priorities

0:27:25 > 0:27:30of the National Security Council. In terms of cyber attack, this is

0:27:30 > 0:27:35something the Ministry of Defence itself leads on so all the work

0:27:35 > 0:27:41across all those realms are done incomplete conjuncture with all the

0:27:41 > 0:27:47parts of our national security infrastructure, whether that is

0:27:47 > 0:27:50GCHQ, MI5 and MI6, and that is something that is essential going

0:27:50 > 0:27:53forward.

0:27:55 > 0:27:59. I think there'll be merit in him coming to the joint strategy

0:27:59 > 0:28:02committee so we can dig into the detail of his announcement more

0:28:02 > 0:28:07thoroughly. I wonder if he agrees many ethat quantity has a quality

0:28:07 > 0:28:12all of its own? And then given the threats we know we face, any further

0:28:12 > 0:28:18reduction in Armed Forces personnel would be extremely unwise.

0:28:19 > 0:28:23Well, we have made a commitment in terms of the size of our armed

0:28:23 > 0:28:28forced. I think there is a very strong argument that you don't just

0:28:28 > 0:28:33need to have forces that have a very best equipment but you also need to

0:28:33 > 0:28:42have mass in order to be able to deploy.Thank you, Mr Speaker. Nick

0:28:42 > 0:28:47Carter stated the Russians could go to war far faster than we thought

0:28:47 > 0:28:52previously. Could I ask my Right Honourable friend if he'll allow

0:28:52 > 0:28:56consideration and support for leaving say a brigade in Germany so

0:28:56 > 0:29:02we are closer to where the battles may well be?We're very much looking

0:29:02 > 0:29:08forward at that option because we need to ensure that forces that are

0:29:08 > 0:29:12either further east have the ability to be properly resupplied and

0:29:12 > 0:29:18supported.Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the whole House will

0:29:18 > 0:29:25congratulate him for taking this review out of the straitjacket. But

0:29:25 > 0:29:32is there a risk that the submarine programme, in particular funding for

0:29:32 > 0:29:37Atut Boat 7, which has not been priced, could be rediverted by this

0:29:37 > 0:29:43review?It's too early in the process to be able to sort of

0:29:43 > 0:29:47comment on that. I will look at the issue he's raised and I will come

0:29:47 > 0:29:51back to him. The whole point of the programme is obviously to look at

0:29:51 > 0:29:57things afresh. But we have commented quite regularly about the increasing

0:29:57 > 0:30:00threat that we are facing in the North Atlantic and this is something

0:30:00 > 0:30:06raised by members and it is about making sure that we have the

0:30:06 > 0:30:11submarines that are able to operate and defend the Norfolk land and I

0:30:11 > 0:30:16will come back to that. Can I thank my Right Honourable

0:30:16 > 0:30:22friend for delivering good news to the House and congratulate him for

0:30:22 > 0:30:27leveraging the somewhat unexpected and suddenness of his appointment to

0:30:27 > 0:30:31advantage for Her Majesty's Armed Forces and for the Ministry of

0:30:31 > 0:30:33Defence and leveraging control over the Defence Review for the first

0:30:33 > 0:30:39time back into the department since 2010 represents a return of san

0:30:39 > 0:30:42knitty because the present Defence Review is proving undeliverable and

0:30:42 > 0:30:49showing what will happen if it is divorced from the department to who

0:30:49 > 0:30:54has to deliver it?I think my honourable friend makes an important

0:30:54 > 0:30:58point in terms of this programme being led by the Ministry of

0:30:58 > 0:31:01Defence. We need the Armed Forces, ones who are leading this programme,

0:31:01 > 0:31:04as they have the greatest understanding of the needs and the

0:31:04 > 0:31:09support that they will require in order to be most effective going

0:31:09 > 0:31:17forward. Mr Speaker, we all welcome the

0:31:17 > 0:31:20impending completion of our new aircraft carriers. However, there is

0:31:20 > 0:31:26some indication that we have insufficient Royal Navy surface

0:31:26 > 0:31:33warships, frigates and destroyers to provide a screen for these mag

0:31:33 > 0:31:38nificent fleet in a combat situation. How is this sorted out?

0:31:38 > 0:31:45That is why my predecessor made it clear we will invest in the tip 30

0:31:45 > 0:31:50and type 21 frigates to make sure we have the protective screen all

0:31:50 > 0:31:54around those magnificent aircraft carriers that everyone in the United

0:31:54 > 0:31:57Kingdom is so very proud of. I welcome the Secretary of State's

0:31:57 > 0:32:01statement and the upbeat nature of its tone. Will he confirm though

0:32:01 > 0:32:05that we've had a lot of discussion around threats in the North Atlantic

0:32:05 > 0:32:10and Russia. Will he confirm he will look at the threat around Suez, as

0:32:10 > 0:32:18with Brexit more of our trade will depend on that part of the world. We

0:32:18 > 0:32:22are looking at how to improve the prosperity of the nation. When we

0:32:22 > 0:32:29talk about global Britain, when we talk about international diplomacy,

0:32:29 > 0:32:34actually our Armed Forces are sometimes, virtually always, the

0:32:34 > 0:32:38best diplomats because actually when they see British forces, whether it

0:32:38 > 0:32:44is for British Army, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy it is a real

0:32:44 > 0:32:48symbol of Britain's reach. A symbol of what we can achieve in the world

0:32:48 > 0:32:55and we will absolutely, certainly, be looking far beyond Suez.

0:32:56 > 0:32:59Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Defence Secretary will know that there's

0:32:59 > 0:33:03nobody in the House today who believes our defence forces are

0:33:03 > 0:33:08anything other than underfunded. With that background, if he's going

0:33:08 > 0:33:11to have the meaningful conversation with the nation that he's indicated

0:33:11 > 0:33:16in his statement, will he give very early consideration to publishing

0:33:16 > 0:33:20the terms of reference and the perception of the changing strategic

0:33:20 > 0:33:26threat that this nation of ours faces?Well, the national security

0:33:26 > 0:33:32and capability review will be looking at coming forward with a

0:33:32 > 0:33:37document explaining as to how it sees the sort of threats and how we

0:33:37 > 0:33:41respond to it. That will be very much in the public domain and what

0:33:41 > 0:33:45we need to be seeing is having that more active debate. That's certainly

0:33:45 > 0:33:50something that I think we all encourage because that threat, those

0:33:50 > 0:33:55threats that we are facing are developing so very, very quickly.

0:33:55 > 0:33:58Just five years ago, Russia was not seen as a real threat to our

0:33:58 > 0:34:02national security. We have to start talking about it. If we don't talk

0:34:02 > 0:34:06about it, people don't understand those threats. I am certainly

0:34:06 > 0:34:08encouraging that debate going forward.

0:34:08 > 0:34:12Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the nature of the increasing tensions

0:34:12 > 0:34:18with Russia, as my Right Honourable friend has alluded to, will he give

0:34:18 > 0:34:23me an assurance that the size and frequentsy of British deployments to

0:34:23 > 0:34:31Poland will increase under this review?So, just before Christmas I

0:34:31 > 0:34:34had the opportunity of visiting our troops in Poland, who are stationed

0:34:34 > 0:34:39there. At the moment, we're not currently looking at increasing the

0:34:39 > 0:34:44number of troops in Poland, but we always are talking very closely with

0:34:44 > 0:34:48our Nato partners. That I are on a six-month rotation, which seems to

0:34:48 > 0:34:58suit matters currently. But we will keep that matter under review.

0:34:58 > 0:35:02Aren't the wild and petulant infantism by the statements of our

0:35:02 > 0:35:07world leaders a great threat to the security of the world? Doesn't

0:35:07 > 0:35:11history tell thaws a greatest accelerant to war is an expectation

0:35:11 > 0:35:16of war that we're fuelling at the moment? Wouldn't it be better for us

0:35:16 > 0:35:20to look at the great work we could do in Bangladesh, on the border

0:35:20 > 0:35:26there now, in peacekeeping, rather than thinking of war-making?We, as

0:35:26 > 0:35:33a nation, are one of the most active nations in making sure that we bring

0:35:33 > 0:35:36peace right across the globe. We have a great history and we should

0:35:36 > 0:35:39take great pride in everything we have achieved in the past. I have no

0:35:39 > 0:35:45doubt we'll achieve in the future. But we have to understand that

0:35:45 > 0:35:51people who are threatening Britain don't respect weakness. They do not

0:35:51 > 0:35:56respect the fact that we, if we were to disarm f we were to get rid of a

0:35:56 > 0:36:02nuclear deterrent, if we were to get rid or diminish our conventional

0:36:02 > 0:36:07forces that would make them no less likely to attack us and we have to

0:36:07 > 0:36:12have an effective deterrent and that deterrent is not just nuclear. It is

0:36:12 > 0:36:19a conventional deterrent as well. Mr Speaker, innovative technology

0:36:19 > 0:36:25firms in the SSE sector make sure our Armed Forces have access to the

0:36:25 > 0:36:29best possibility equipment. Will he make sure as this rolls forward will

0:36:29 > 0:36:34he make sure it is considered?I know my honourable friend has done a

0:36:34 > 0:36:39lot of work on the fourth Industrial Revolution. It is how we can harness

0:36:39 > 0:36:42those new technologies to give our military the constant advantage

0:36:42 > 0:36:48going forward and the battlefield is changing incredibly rapidly. If we

0:36:48 > 0:36:52can work with small and medium-sized businesses, yes, we need to do it

0:36:52 > 0:36:56more. Sometimes the most innovative ideas are come from those

0:36:56 > 0:37:01businesses. I appreciated the time he took to speak with me of some of

0:37:01 > 0:37:06the work in his constituency of Havant and looking forward to

0:37:06 > 0:37:13working with him further for that.I welcome the review that postpones

0:37:13 > 0:37:24defence cuts T longer uncertainty goes on it is hit more. Can Plymouth

0:37:24 > 0:37:29be reassured that it will not be cut in the cuts announced.What we have

0:37:29 > 0:37:32outlined in terms of the programme is we need to do this quickly. We

0:37:32 > 0:37:36have very conscious of the concerns that people have who serve in the

0:37:36 > 0:37:40Armed Forces that is why we are committed to make sure we will

0:37:40 > 0:37:43report back before the summer recess.What the Secretary of State

0:37:43 > 0:37:47may not realise is that although Derby is as far as fr the sea as you

0:37:47 > 0:37:51can get we have a very strong relationship with a sub mariner

0:37:51 > 0:37:55associations and they are the unsung heroes. They are under the sea for

0:37:55 > 0:38:01months at a time. Can we ensure they are, an essential part of this

0:38:01 > 0:38:10review and they are looked after? Don't forget that the submarines are

0:38:10 > 0:38:15powered by Rolls-Royce engines from Derby?And very fine engines they R

0:38:15 > 0:38:19and we're approaching almost 50 years that we've had a continuous

0:38:19 > 0:38:25at-sea nuclear deterrent. And the wo, that the sub mariner force

0:38:25 > 0:38:31inevitably goes unnoticed. That is the aim. But what they do in terms

0:38:31 > 0:38:36of actually protecting this country is truly magnificent and without

0:38:36 > 0:38:38their work, without their commitment, without this, without

0:38:38 > 0:38:43their dedication the country would be a lot less safe.

0:38:43 > 0:38:49I think this is the first chance I've had to welcome my opposite

0:38:49 > 0:38:53number to the dispatch point. At which point would Trident become a

0:38:53 > 0:38:57burden on the defence subject or the budget of the country as a whole if

0:38:57 > 0:39:04it takes up a greater proportion, far from keeping us safe it puts

0:39:04 > 0:39:10pressure on conventional forces and can put pressure in harms way?I

0:39:10 > 0:39:15dearly miss my former honourable counterpart in terms of the work we

0:39:15 > 0:39:21did as chief whips together. The nuclear, continuous at sea deterrent

0:39:21 > 0:39:26is a vital part of our defence. But we can never see it in isolation. So

0:39:26 > 0:39:32often we talk about continuous at sea nuclear deterrents and not

0:39:32 > 0:39:37without a recognition that the deterrents is the whole spectrum

0:39:37 > 0:39:43from infantry, whether it is royal naval frigates, destroyers, whether

0:39:43 > 0:39:50it is RAF helicopters or fast jets and the British Army itself. So, it

0:39:50 > 0:39:58is an integral part of it. But if we got rid of the continuous at sea

0:39:58 > 0:40:01nuclear deterrent, we would make Britain less safe and we have to

0:40:01 > 0:40:05have it. And I would have thought it's something the honourable

0:40:05 > 0:40:09gentleman would always welcome because it brings an awful lot of

0:40:09 > 0:40:13wealth, prosperity and an awful lot of jobs to Scotland. On this side

0:40:13 > 0:40:18we're very proud of that.Mr Speaker, I welcome the secretary of

0:40:18 > 0:40:22state's statement. And would he agree that flexibility in order to

0:40:22 > 0:40:27support our allies when we required is vital? I want to highlight the

0:40:27 > 0:40:32flexibility of the ma reaps and I have 4th commando in my constituency

0:40:32 > 0:40:37not in terms of security but in terms of helping the community in

0:40:37 > 0:40:41times of floods and hurry tans, for example.

0:40:41 > 0:40:48-- hurricanes, for example. I know note my honourable friend's comments

0:40:48 > 0:40:52about the flexibility of the Royal Marines. She's right. It is the

0:40:52 > 0:40:58parachute reg mentd, it is every part of -- regiment. It is every

0:40:58 > 0:41:02part, the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the auxiliary. We saw in

0:41:02 > 0:41:06the Caribbean how they stepped up at a moment's notice to deliver relief

0:41:06 > 0:41:10to tens of thousands of people. We see it every year. Where there is

0:41:10 > 0:41:14tragedy that hits different parts of the United Kingdom, how they step up

0:41:14 > 0:41:18to the. We are very proud of that and there is an essential part of

0:41:18 > 0:41:23what they do and will continue to do.

0:41:23 > 0:41:29My constituents have raised with me the important of retain in this

0:41:29 > 0:41:32country the capability to produce the equipment we need for our Armed

0:41:32 > 0:41:35Forces. I wonder as the new Secretary of State what his views

0:41:35 > 0:41:41were on the importance and what importance he puts on that?I put a

0:41:41 > 0:41:47great importance on it. I want to see whenever we can do to purchase

0:41:47 > 0:41:51products that are manufactured here in Britain. But going forward, we

0:41:51 > 0:41:55also have to look at how we can manufacture products that we can't

0:41:55 > 0:42:00just sell to the Ministry of Defence, but we can also sell right

0:42:00 > 0:42:06across the globe. Because actually the more we have in terms of the

0:42:06 > 0:42:11product portfolio that we can sell into the Gulf, to Europe, the United

0:42:11 > 0:42:14States, the better for British industry.

0:42:14 > 0:42:19Will the Secretary of State make certain as part of his review that

0:42:19 > 0:42:22the innovation of British enterprises ensures we have the most

0:42:22 > 0:42:27modern weapons for our tanks, ships and planes?Absolutely.

0:42:30 > 0:42:35This is where we can have the opportunity to embrace new

0:42:35 > 0:42:39technology, make our Armed Forces more effective in terms of what they

0:42:39 > 0:42:44can do. If we stand still, our enemies will overtake us and we have

0:42:44 > 0:42:47some of the most innovative companies in this country, we have

0:42:47 > 0:42:52got to make use of that innovation. Companies that sometimes have never

0:42:52 > 0:43:00before sold to defence.I had hoped to ask the Secretary of State for

0:43:00 > 0:43:04reassurance for the service personnel under thousands of people

0:43:04 > 0:43:06across Lancashire working in the defence industry, however I am aware

0:43:06 > 0:43:12that the statement was expected on Monday. Can I ask the Secretary of

0:43:12 > 0:43:16State, will his still be open to colleagues who are not in the

0:43:16 > 0:43:19Chamber today because of the nature of the statement and will he meet

0:43:19 > 0:43:25with them?I will always meet with them. Jobs in Lancashire is

0:43:25 > 0:43:29something very close to my heart and I was very proud to be able to sign

0:43:29 > 0:43:36a deal with the Qataris for the largest Cabinet typhoon order in

0:43:36 > 0:43:45over a decade. We need to do more of that. -- Typhoon order. I look

0:43:45 > 0:43:49forward to working with members on both sides of the house to make sure

0:43:49 > 0:43:54British defence industry continues to thrive and prosper going forward.

0:43:54 > 0:43:59I congratulate my right honourable friend on his statement. What does

0:43:59 > 0:44:04he believe the impact of the outcome of the review will be on the vital

0:44:04 > 0:44:13issues of recruitment and retention? I do not want to prejudge the whole

0:44:13 > 0:44:19programme just yet. But what we do need to do is to give people the

0:44:19 > 0:44:24real confidence and belief that the Armed Forces are treasured and

0:44:24 > 0:44:30valued by everyone in this country, if they join the army, the Navy,

0:44:30 > 0:44:34that air force, they are not just going to have a great career, they

0:44:34 > 0:44:38will have the best possible career anyone could ever have. I hope this

0:44:38 > 0:44:42programme can give them the confidence that a career in our

0:44:42 > 0:44:49Armed Forces is the best they can pursue.It is great to see you back

0:44:49 > 0:44:55in the chair. I believe the Secretary of State... The danger of

0:44:55 > 0:44:58continually augmenting our threat assessments, losing capacity,

0:44:58 > 0:45:05finding old threats renewed. In looking to modernise, can I urge the

0:45:05 > 0:45:09Secretary of State to look closely at Northern Ireland, recognise a

0:45:09 > 0:45:14constituency like mine has the UK's largest drydock, suitable for Queen

0:45:14 > 0:45:20Elizabeth class carriers, but also the latest cyber security centres

0:45:20 > 0:45:23within the city? Northern Ireland has never been found wanting when it

0:45:23 > 0:45:30comes to personal or procurement opportunities.We owe a great debt

0:45:30 > 0:45:37to Northern Ireland. It contributes 7% of our Armed Forces, far greater

0:45:37 > 0:45:41than its actual population, both in terms of the regular army and the

0:45:41 > 0:45:47reserves. I will very much have Northern Ireland at the forefront.

0:45:47 > 0:45:52I'm not sure if the Democratic Unionist Party would like to suggest

0:45:52 > 0:45:59a third aircraft carrier to be built there... But it is absolutely vital

0:45:59 > 0:46:06to continue to work together and make sure that part of the UK that

0:46:06 > 0:46:09has continuously played such an important role in our national

0:46:09 > 0:46:14defence continues to do so going forward.I welcome the statement.

0:46:14 > 0:46:19The cyber threat we face today is novel and unprecedented and I

0:46:19 > 0:46:24welcome his presence in the statement but it is not simply about

0:46:24 > 0:46:27state and non-state actors hacking infrastructure and businesses, it is

0:46:27 > 0:46:32about the spread of disinformation. I wonder if he could set a little

0:46:32 > 0:46:35bit about what consideration the review will give to that new way of

0:46:35 > 0:46:42reaching directly to our citizens. Well, the national security adviser

0:46:42 > 0:46:47is leading on much of this so I would not want to pinch other

0:46:47 > 0:46:50aspects of the national security and capability review. I would also

0:46:50 > 0:46:57struggle to get away outlining some of the things we wish to do without

0:46:57 > 0:47:01breaching national security. If my honourable friend will forgive me

0:47:01 > 0:47:07for evading his question...I thank the Minister for his statement and

0:47:07 > 0:47:12for his promise of a review. Recruitment has fallen to such an

0:47:12 > 0:47:20extent that more personal now leave town are recruited. They tell me

0:47:20 > 0:47:25that reopening the Army recruitment offices in the high street would

0:47:25 > 0:47:32help. Could I ask, would he as a matter of urgency considered the

0:47:32 > 0:47:35reintroduction of high-street recruitment centres to increase the

0:47:35 > 0:47:37numbers and delivered the defence modernisation around the soldiers

0:47:37 > 0:47:43recruited?That is an option we are looking at and we have seen an

0:47:43 > 0:47:51uptake in the number of people who are blind to -- who are applying to

0:47:51 > 0:47:54join the British Army, we're happy to look at all ideas to make sure we

0:47:54 > 0:47:57get the right number of people to join the armed services so we can

0:47:57 > 0:48:05fill the numbers to operate effectively.I would like to take

0:48:05 > 0:48:11this opportunity to wish you a very happy Burns Night. I am addressing a

0:48:11 > 0:48:15Burns supper and when I stand up, will I be able to confirm this

0:48:15 > 0:48:18review will remain in the sole command of the Secretary of State

0:48:18 > 0:48:22and that in conducting the review he and his staff are fully aware of the

0:48:22 > 0:48:26critical importance the senior services capabilities of which there

0:48:26 > 0:48:31has been some concern of late, especially the amphibious

0:48:31 > 0:48:34capabilities?I can give very clear confirmation this will remain in the

0:48:34 > 0:48:38hands of the MOD. We are driving this review, this programme of

0:48:38 > 0:48:43modernisation. The Prime Minister and everyone thinks it is right for

0:48:43 > 0:48:47the ready to do this. The first time we have done it in this way since

0:48:47 > 0:48:512010. I hope that as part of this we will get the right answers as part

0:48:51 > 0:48:58of the work we are doing.Point of order. Doctor Julian Lewis.Thank

0:48:58 > 0:49:07you. What a delight it is to see you back in the chair. Have IVU or Mr

0:49:07 > 0:49:12Speaker been given notice by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in

0:49:12 > 0:49:17view of the important call by the former Secretary of State for

0:49:17 > 0:49:22Defence for 2.5% of GDP to be spent on defence that he will be coming to

0:49:22 > 0:49:27this Chamber in order to announce an increase in the defence budget so

0:49:27 > 0:49:31that the present Secretary of State for Defence and put it to good use?

0:49:31 > 0:49:44-- have you or the secretary of defence. What I can say is, the good

0:49:44 > 0:49:47thing is, it will be on the record, and I'm sure they will be coming to

0:49:47 > 0:49:53let you know what the outcome be very shortly. I am grateful. It is

0:49:53 > 0:50:00very good to see you back in your place. It was July, 2017, when the

0:50:00 > 0:50:03Prime Minister announced there was to be a public inquiry into the

0:50:03 > 0:50:10contaminated blood scandal, the worst in the NHS. It is now near the

0:50:10 > 0:50:15end of January, 2018, and we still do not have a chair or terms of

0:50:15 > 0:50:19reference or any indication when the public inquiry will be established.

0:50:19 > 0:50:24I wondered if you had been given any indication from the Government about

0:50:24 > 0:50:31a statement or announcement about what will happen next with this

0:50:31 > 0:50:34long-awaited public inquiry?I can assure you I have been given no

0:50:34 > 0:50:40indication. She will certainly take up other news to pursue it. It is on

0:50:40 > 0:50:45the record, it is an important matter and I'm sure the Government

0:50:45 > 0:50:50will look at it -- take up other avenues.A pleasure to see you back

0:50:50 > 0:50:55in your place. Following the statement we have just had, many

0:50:55 > 0:50:59members here today and not here today feel deeply aggrieved at the

0:50:59 > 0:51:04way it has been handled. You will know about the shenanigans yesterday

0:51:04 > 0:51:10of the statement being ordered off several times. Worse than that, at a

0:51:10 > 0:51:14debate yesterday morning, the Minister of State sat to the left of

0:51:14 > 0:51:17the Secretary of State right now shoring members that the debate that

0:51:17 > 0:51:22the statement would not be happening this week, but next week. I was

0:51:22 > 0:51:26given an assurance by the Leader of the House that it would be happening

0:51:26 > 0:51:29next week. Whilst I welcome the fact it has come earlier, the way they

0:51:29 > 0:51:34have tried to jiggery pokery this around has been deeply unedifying

0:51:34 > 0:51:39and discourteous to members of the House. Can you give an assurance

0:51:39 > 0:51:44this will not happen again from the MoD and can you advise members how

0:51:44 > 0:51:49we can ensure that when they come to report in July, as they hope to do,

0:51:49 > 0:51:53that the same thing does not happen so they trick members into thinking

0:51:53 > 0:51:59the statement is not forthcoming when it actually has been?It is not

0:51:59 > 0:52:03for the chair to decide when the statement will come. It is up to the

0:52:03 > 0:52:08Secretary of State when they decide to do that. I recognise there has

0:52:08 > 0:52:12been a lot of frustration, I am sure that will have been taken on board,

0:52:12 > 0:52:16and I am sure usual channels can't begin to have a conversation to try

0:52:16 > 0:52:21to work to ensure all parties do not feel aggrieved and I'm sure it has

0:52:21 > 0:52:25been taken on board and I can assure you it is not for the chair to

0:52:25 > 0:52:30decide when the statement will come -- I am sure the usual channels can

0:52:30 > 0:52:37begin. I'm sure it was not done deliberately.The come back again, I

0:52:37 > 0:52:44do happen to know that there was a strong wish on the part of the

0:52:44 > 0:52:48Secretary of State for Defence and his team to have made this statement

0:52:48 > 0:52:53yesterday and the only reason it was not made was so as not to cut into

0:52:53 > 0:52:58opposition day time. I do think that should be borne in mind.I do not

0:52:58 > 0:53:00want to pursue the debate, I know there were various discussions

0:53:00 > 0:53:08yesterday. In the end, the statement came today and what I would say is,

0:53:08 > 0:53:12I do not want to get into how it was arrived at, that is something that

0:53:12 > 0:53:18was done behind and quite rightly with Mr Speaker, it is where we are

0:53:18 > 0:53:21at now, I will not pursue it in any other way, the statement has been

0:53:21 > 0:53:28heard, move on from that. OK. Right, we now come to select committee

0:53:28 > 0:53:32statement. Mr Bernard Jenkin will speak for up to ten minutes during

0:53:32 > 0:53:36which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion, I will call

0:53:36 > 0:53:40members to put questions on the subject of the statement and called

0:53:40 > 0:53:44Mr Bernard Jenkin to respond in turn. Members can expect to be

0:53:44 > 0:53:56called only once and interventions... Order. Minister. I

0:53:56 > 0:54:00am in the middle of the statement. Not further your colleagues. Please,

0:54:00 > 0:54:07show a little more respect. Members can expect to be called only once.

0:54:07 > 0:54:10Interventions should be questions and three. The front bench might

0:54:10 > 0:54:21take part in questioning. I call the chair of the committee.Overseeing

0:54:21 > 0:54:28the UK's changing constitution and the efficacy of the civil service.

0:54:28 > 0:54:33Within that, it covers matters of ethics and propriety in Whitehall

0:54:33 > 0:54:37overseeing the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the

0:54:37 > 0:54:42ministerial code, the civil service code and the work of the advisory

0:54:42 > 0:54:53committee on business appointments, known as Acoba, when they take up

0:54:53 > 0:54:57outside appointments. Pacac has to find its overriding purpose as

0:54:57 > 0:55:02being, I'll quote, to conduct robust and effective scrutiny to help

0:55:02 > 0:55:06create conditions whether public can have justified confidence in public

0:55:06 > 0:55:13and government. In that context, just before the election, in April,

0:55:13 > 0:55:172017, a new report was published entitled managing ministers and

0:55:17 > 0:55:24officials conflicts of interests, time for clearer values, principles

0:55:24 > 0:55:28and action. This followed a report published in 2012 by our predecessor

0:55:28 > 0:55:35committee which recommended replacing the existing rules with a

0:55:35 > 0:55:39statutory system. The main recommendations of that report and

0:55:39 > 0:55:43of our more recent 2017 report have been flatly rejected by the

0:55:43 > 0:55:46Government. I'm afraid many people believe this to be hopelessly

0:55:46 > 0:55:52complacent. PACAC is therefore announcing in a supplementary report

0:55:52 > 0:55:56published today that we intend to hold a further inquiry into these

0:55:56 > 0:56:01matters. The way we manage conflicts of interest arising where former

0:56:01 > 0:56:03ministers and crown servants leave the Government to take up jobs

0:56:03 > 0:56:10elsewhere really matters. There is a constant stream of embarrassing

0:56:10 > 0:56:14stories in the media about the so-called revolving door between

0:56:14 > 0:56:18employment in the public and private sector, suggesting that people must

0:56:18 > 0:56:22use the advantage of a job in government to get lucrative jobs

0:56:22 > 0:56:27outside. While many of these stories may be unfair, this is deeply

0:56:27 > 0:56:31corrosive of public trust in our system of democracy and government

0:56:31 > 0:56:34because the present system of oversight fails to provide adequate

0:56:34 > 0:56:41assurance. For example, I name only one department as an example, but it

0:56:41 > 0:56:44includes every department, the constant flow of MoD civil servants

0:56:44 > 0:56:49and senior officers from the Armed Forces who finish up working in the

0:56:49 > 0:56:52defence industry, a similar situation occurs in other

0:56:52 > 0:56:55departments. Nobody should assume that there is automatically anything

0:56:55 > 0:57:00wrong with this, but there needs to be an adequate system of assurance

0:57:00 > 0:57:05that there is indeed nothing wrong and that we are not fostering and

0:57:05 > 0:57:08over permissive attitude. The expectation of many people, even of

0:57:08 > 0:57:13some ministers, is that this is the new normal and everybody does it. We

0:57:13 > 0:57:19acknowledge and I pay tribute to the hard work of the ACOBA board, the

0:57:19 > 0:57:26chair, the secretary at, but both 2017 and 2012 reports can only be

0:57:26 > 0:57:32described as a excoriating. In 2017, they concluded, ACOBA in its current

0:57:32 > 0:57:36form is a toothless regulator which has failed to change the environment

0:57:36 > 0:57:42around business appointments. That is because ACOBA lacks power,

0:57:42 > 0:57:48resources and its remit is much too limited. It is not a regulator,

0:57:48 > 0:57:52merely advisory, with no sanctions for noncompliance and there are

0:57:52 > 0:58:03regular instances of business appointment rules being ignored.

0:58:03 > 0:58:08We actually have little idea of the scale of noncompliance. This has got

0:58:08 > 0:58:15worse since the Government removed Acoba's responsibility to report and

0:58:15 > 0:58:23more on the from below DD3 in 2010. Departments are meant to post half

0:58:23 > 0:58:27yearly data on their websites to show when advice is given to

0:58:27 > 0:58:34applicants. But this data has become patchy. We just don't know how many

0:58:34 > 0:58:42servants below SS3 level who have performed important roles end up in

0:58:42 > 0:58:46a position to draw an insight information on their Government

0:58:46 > 0:58:51contacts after they leave the civil servant. In the period between the

0:58:51 > 0:58:55reports the challenge has escalated with increased numbers of public

0:58:55 > 0:59:00servants and ministers moving between the private and public

0:59:00 > 0:59:12sectors. A personal observation is that the magazine Private Eye, who

0:59:12 > 0:59:16whom we took evidence frequently appears to do a better business

0:59:16 > 0:59:20policing the rules than the advisory committee itself. It is essential

0:59:20 > 0:59:26that steps are taken to ensure that the Acoba system is swiftly

0:59:26 > 0:59:31improved. In the more recent report we set out recommendations in

0:59:31 > 0:59:35relation to how it could be done without result to statute. Although

0:59:35 > 0:59:41we recommend that a cost benefit analysis of statutory regulation

0:59:41 > 0:59:47should be rejected. It has been rejected on the basis it will be too

0:59:47 > 0:59:49costly but they refuse to do the cost benefit analysis. It

0:59:49 > 0:59:53recommended that the Government should be provided with the powers

0:59:53 > 0:59:58necessary to enforce compliance with the rules and there should be a

0:59:58 > 1:00:01substantial increase in transparency regarding Acoba's decision and

1:00:01 > 1:00:07departments. Applications should be published on receipt, not just those

1:00:07 > 1:00:12which are approved and indeed that might reduce a lot of their

1:00:12 > 1:00:16unnecessary workload. Most important, the business

1:00:16 > 1:00:19appointment rules should be fundamentally changed. A system to

1:00:19 > 1:00:25manage conflicts of interest should be more than codes and declarations.

1:00:25 > 1:00:30If it is effectively taught by leaders and learned by everyone to

1:00:30 > 1:00:35be intrinsic to public service would create a new and different

1:00:35 > 1:00:39expectations that individuals will act with integrity encouraging

1:00:39 > 1:00:42people to regulate their own behaviour and attitude according to

1:00:42 > 1:00:46those principals. Our report recommends a change of emphasis in

1:00:46 > 1:00:51the Ministerial Code and the civil service code to highlight the

1:00:51 > 1:00:56principals which should guide behaviour. We need to instil

1:00:56 > 1:01:02decisions. We believe this combined with the independent checks could

1:01:02 > 1:01:06foster a substantial improvement in attitudes and behaviours. The

1:01:06 > 1:01:08Government responded that the essence of these principals and

1:01:08 > 1:01:14values are embedded in the code but they are not ex-police tick enough.

1:01:14 > 1:01:19-- explicit enough. We need a change of heart, a change of system

1:01:19 > 1:01:23otherwise public confidence will continue to be eroded.

1:01:23 > 1:01:30That ening you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can I chang the honourable gentleman

1:01:30 > 1:01:33for the powerful report he's made. On this side we are committed to

1:01:33 > 1:01:38bring this issue to the top of the political agenda and seek reform as

1:01:38 > 1:01:41not a week goes by without the exposure of some conflict of

1:01:41 > 1:01:44interest within the heart of Government. So bearing in mind his

1:01:44 > 1:01:47statement and report does the chair of the Select Committee agree with

1:01:47 > 1:01:50me that the report raises serious questions of governance and confirms

1:01:50 > 1:01:58this is a Government of the few by the few and for the few?I will

1:01:58 > 1:02:03leave aside the sound bite that came at the end of his question. But the

1:02:03 > 1:02:08substance of his remark is correct. That the system is inadequate. It

1:02:08 > 1:02:13needs to be strengthened and reformed and I am delighted that Her

1:02:13 > 1:02:20Majesty's official opposition will take an interest in this matter.

1:02:26 > 1:02:32Thank you very much. We agree the business appointment rules should be

1:02:32 > 1:02:36strengthened and we are disappointed with the Government's response. As

1:02:36 > 1:02:42Burns would have said, I wouldn't give a button for it. Would he agree

1:02:42 > 1:02:48that Private Eye recognise this resolving door in Government smacks,

1:02:48 > 1:02:54in the Government res'ses upon to this evident problem that their

1:02:54 > 1:02:59response smacks of complacency and self-interest? Would he agree there

1:02:59 > 1:03:03is little respect for Acoba and would he agree if nothing is done by

1:03:03 > 1:03:07Government and by this House to strengthen the business appointment

1:03:07 > 1:03:15rules it will undermine trust in politics?Our report does mention

1:03:15 > 1:03:22George Osborne as, in two respects, first of all that it was striking

1:03:22 > 1:03:27and starting that Acoba appeared to give a blank cheque to the former

1:03:27 > 1:03:34Chancellor to join black rock at a very, very inflated salary. So

1:03:34 > 1:03:41shortly after he had left his office as Chancellor of the Exchequer. And

1:03:41 > 1:03:47George Osborne also completely by passed the appointment as editor of

1:03:47 > 1:03:51The Evening Standard prior to accepting his appointment, and we

1:03:51 > 1:03:59regard this as a very glaring example, not necessarily to the

1:03:59 > 1:04:03dishonour of any particular individual but of how the system

1:04:03 > 1:04:10fails to command public confidence. Mr Deputy Speaker may I join others

1:04:10 > 1:04:15in welcoming you to your place? May I thank the honourable member for

1:04:15 > 1:04:19his work in bringing these affairs to the attention of the House today.

1:04:19 > 1:04:23May I simply, may I simply encourage members who are present here today

1:04:23 > 1:04:26if they have not done so to look at the Government response which has

1:04:26 > 1:04:30been laid in response to the committee's report in which we

1:04:30 > 1:04:34clearly state that the Government is committed to maintaining the highest

1:04:34 > 1:04:38standards of conduct for ministers and civil servants including special

1:04:38 > 1:04:42advisers and the rules and procedures we have in place we

1:04:42 > 1:04:46believe are proportionate anded a Kuwait. We look forward to, working

1:04:46 > 1:04:52-- and adequate. We look forward to working with the committee.

1:04:52 > 1:04:56I first of all welcome my honourable friend back to the front bench in

1:04:56 > 1:05:01her position in the Cabinet Office. To which she brings considerable

1:05:01 > 1:05:07experience and indeed some experience of this issue. I have to

1:05:07 > 1:05:12express my disappointment of the response that the Government tabled.

1:05:12 > 1:05:19I mean there were some acceptances of some minor amendments. But to

1:05:19 > 1:05:25regard this, a system, as the highest example of regulation and

1:05:25 > 1:05:29openness, when it simply does not deliver the public confidence that

1:05:29 > 1:05:34we wish, I appreciate this is a vexed issue and that we don't want

1:05:34 > 1:05:37to deter people coming into this the public service if they feel they

1:05:37 > 1:05:42will be unfairly treated on the way out.

1:05:42 > 1:05:49But the present arrangements are not adequate and even to refuse, putting

1:05:49 > 1:05:53more explicitly into the Ministerial Code words such as we recommend, you

1:05:53 > 1:05:57must take decisions in the public interest alone, you must never allow

1:05:57 > 1:06:02yourself to be influenced in contract and procurement regulation

1:06:02 > 1:06:06or advice by your career expectations or prospects if you

1:06:06 > 1:06:11leave the public service. You must not take up any post outside in

1:06:11 > 1:06:15business or commercial operations op rating in areas you have been

1:06:15 > 1:06:19directly responsible. I don't understand why these things can not

1:06:19 > 1:06:24be put explicitly in the Ministerial Code in order that they should be

1:06:24 > 1:06:29talked about and understood and it should change the attitudes that are

1:06:29 > 1:06:33unfortunately pervading much of ministers, special ministers and

1:06:33 > 1:06:40civil servants in Whitehall.Doesn't the conduct of the Government in, on

1:06:40 > 1:06:44this report re-enforce the public view that we hear acting in our own

1:06:44 > 1:06:49private interests and not in the public interests. And isn't it

1:06:49 > 1:06:55significant that a Prime Minister who has not lifted a finger in

1:06:55 > 1:07:00answer to the pleas for reform, to jam the resolving door during the

1:07:00 > 1:07:03period of office, have now taken advantage of that period of office

1:07:03 > 1:07:09to take a job with Chinese, with whom he worked in Government, and

1:07:09 > 1:07:16can the chair of the committee explain to us why the invitation to

1:07:16 > 1:07:22George Osborne to come to the committee, to explain why he had

1:07:22 > 1:07:27five meetings with Black Rock, he altered the law in their favour and

1:07:27 > 1:07:35when he lost his office took a job with them for £6 50,000 for a

1:07:35 > 1:07:40one-day week's work. If that is not an example of the use of the

1:07:40 > 1:07:47revolving door, it is hard to see what is. We have a shameful record

1:07:47 > 1:07:52and the public, perhaps the chair would agree, will regard this with

1:07:52 > 1:07:57contempt, rightly in the future, as not being fit to police our own

1:07:57 > 1:08:03affairs. Sadly, I agree with my honourable,

1:08:03 > 1:08:06with the honourable gentleman, who is a member of my committee and who

1:08:06 > 1:08:10has been very instrumental in drawing the committee's attention to

1:08:10 > 1:08:13these issues and I would almost describe him as the conscience of

1:08:13 > 1:08:17the committee on this issue. And long may he continue to

1:08:17 > 1:08:24encourage us in this work. As he knows, it is not the practise of the

1:08:24 > 1:08:26committee to prosecute individual cases. I think we should resist

1:08:26 > 1:08:30that. Because I think it would divert

1:08:30 > 1:08:37attention from the substance of the work that we need to undertake. I

1:08:37 > 1:08:42actually am quite pleased about how obviously carefully drafted the

1:08:42 > 1:08:45Government's response is to our report, because I think that the

1:08:45 > 1:08:49points we are making in our report are having a telling effect. Though

1:08:49 > 1:08:54we have a long way to go and that's why he's been one of those

1:08:54 > 1:08:56encouraging the committee to encourage this, pursuing this

1:08:56 > 1:09:00subject with a further enquiry. I thank him for his work for the

1:09:00 > 1:09:06committee. THE SPEAKER: Now we come to joint

1:09:06 > 1:09:09enterprise. Understanding orders it is usually

1:09:09 > 1:09:14around 15 minutes. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy

1:09:14 > 1:09:19Speaker. May I first of all welcome you back to our place in the chair

1:09:19 > 1:09:25today. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing you and your

1:09:25 > 1:09:29family all the best. I know it's been a very difficult few weeks for

1:09:29 > 1:09:35you. Can I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing the

1:09:35 > 1:09:39application for this important debate. And to The Right Honourable

1:09:39 > 1:09:46and honourable members who supported the application, particularly the

1:09:46 > 1:09:50members for Sutton #k08d field, Bromley and can Chislehurst and

1:09:50 > 1:09:54Tottenham, as they lead members. I would like to thank the families and

1:09:54 > 1:09:58campaigners on joint exercise. Many of whom are in the public gallery

1:09:58 > 1:10:02today and who have never given up their fight for justice for their

1:10:02 > 1:10:09loved ones. So why this debate today and now? Nearly two years to the day

1:10:09 > 1:10:14since the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling tha the law had

1:10:14 > 1:10:19taken a wrong turn, followed many years of campaigning with

1:10:19 > 1:10:25high-profile and documentaries such as Common by Jimmy McGovern. Since

1:10:25 > 1:10:29that time nothing of substance has actually changed. The campaigners

1:10:29 > 1:10:35leading up to that highlighted how particularly in murder cases

1:10:35 > 1:10:39secondary parties were often receiving mandatory life sentences

1:10:39 > 1:10:44for lesser or no significant part in the crime than the principal. And

1:10:44 > 1:10:50that the evidential bar in many cases is much lower threshold than

1:10:50 > 1:10:54would normally apply to murder, particularly that the secondary

1:10:54 > 1:11:01parties might have foreseen the actions of others and intended or

1:11:01 > 1:11:06have knowingly foreseen. At the time of the Supreme Court ruling,

1:11:06 > 1:11:09campaigners, parliamentarians and others viewed this ruling as a

1:11:09 > 1:11:13victory and had confidence that the injustices of the past would be put

1:11:13 > 1:11:17right. And the use of joint enterprise going forward would be

1:11:17 > 1:11:23more limited. However, two years on from the Supreme Court ruling and it

1:11:23 > 1:11:28feels increasingly like a victory, with no case from the 30 years of

1:11:28 > 1:11:32the wrong law being applied, having yet been awarded an appeal and many

1:11:32 > 1:11:37new cases with all the hallmarks of the old cases being successfully

1:11:37 > 1:11:44prosecuted. I shall give way to...Can I thank

1:11:44 > 1:11:47my honourable friend and congratulate her on this debate on

1:11:47 > 1:11:52this really difficult issue, which is not a small issue. Would she

1:11:52 > 1:11:58agree 4,500 people are currently in prison caught under the wrongful

1:11:58 > 1:12:02application of joint enterprise laws omen, women and children, who are

1:12:02 > 1:12:06serving long sentences for crimes they did not commit?I would fully

1:12:06 > 1:12:10agree with the point made by my honourable friend there. In fact we

1:12:10 > 1:12:14know that it's at least that sort of figure and we don't have the

1:12:14 > 1:12:20accurate figures.Before she moves on, can I congratulate her on this

1:12:20 > 1:12:27debate. It is a crucial issue. An All Party Parliamentary Group on

1:12:27 > 1:12:32miscarriages of justice, it has this as a high priority. On a particular

1:12:32 > 1:12:35case, Alex Hendry is of great important because I chair the autism

1:12:35 > 1:12:42commission. There are seven people in this ghastly predicament on the

1:12:42 > 1:12:45autism spectrum and that has been taken out of account.

1:12:48 > 1:12:55I know the family are here today, of that case, and it has many of the

1:12:55 > 1:12:58hallmarks we will come on to discuss. We are seeing the new

1:12:58 > 1:13:04generation of joint enterprise lifers in prison. The Supreme Court

1:13:04 > 1:13:08said it was, I quote, the responsibility of the court to put

1:13:08 > 1:13:12them all right. But many of us have come to the conclusion the criminal

1:13:12 > 1:13:18justice will not and is not writing itself in relation to a joint

1:13:18 > 1:13:23enterprise and that we need to act. That is why MPs from across the

1:13:23 > 1:13:28House have joined together today so we can send a strong signal to the

1:13:28 > 1:13:32Government and the prosecutors that the way we are continuing to apply

1:13:32 > 1:13:37the law and the incredibly high bar set for the previous... I will give

1:13:37 > 1:13:42way in a moment. The previous unsafe convictions to be heard, it needs

1:13:42 > 1:13:49re-dress. I will give way briefly to both my colleagues.I am grateful

1:13:49 > 1:13:53and I congratulate her on bringing this very important subject to the

1:13:53 > 1:13:57floor of the House of Commons. I have had reason to represent one of

1:13:57 > 1:14:03my constituents who was convicted and sentenced to 31 years under

1:14:03 > 1:14:09joint enterprise. He was doubly punished recently because he was not

1:14:09 > 1:14:13allowed to go to his grandmother's funeral, not because of anything he

1:14:13 > 1:14:17had done wrong, but because Greater Manchester Police thought he may

1:14:17 > 1:14:24become a victim, a double punishment. Isn't the real problem

1:14:24 > 1:14:31with joint enterprise that people are punished and sentenced to long

1:14:31 > 1:14:37prison sentence of over 30 years for actions they did not carry out

1:14:37 > 1:14:39themselves?I would agree wholeheartedly with my colleague. I

1:14:39 > 1:14:44will take one more intervention and then make some progress.I am very

1:14:44 > 1:14:47grateful to my honourable friend forgiving way and I just try to read

1:14:47 > 1:14:55the comments. Very good to see you back in your place. Two questions.

1:14:55 > 1:15:00One following pack made by our honourable friend, looking at the

1:15:00 > 1:15:04statistics, 37% of those serving long sentences for joint enterprise

1:15:04 > 1:15:10of blacks, 11 times the proportion of black people in the proportion,

1:15:10 > 1:15:14and also if you're mixed race, similarly disproportionate figures

1:15:14 > 1:15:18which I think underlines why it is absolutely essential we have the

1:15:18 > 1:15:22review that my honourable friend has called for in the motion today which

1:15:22 > 1:15:29I fully support. Secondly, surely we are seeing a case, given the

1:15:29 > 1:15:35uncertainty here, where the courts are in effect acting as legislators.

1:15:35 > 1:15:38That is wrong. Where there is uncertainty in the law, it is for

1:15:38 > 1:15:44this House to tidy up, particularly when it is visiting injustice.I

1:15:44 > 1:15:49wholeheartedly agree with his sentiment and I will come on to

1:15:49 > 1:15:55address some of that in my speech. With hundreds of what is known as

1:15:55 > 1:15:59lifers in prison convicted under what the Supreme Court viewed as a

1:15:59 > 1:16:03wrong application of the law, this is potentially one of the biggest

1:16:03 > 1:16:08and most widespread miscarriages of justice ever to face our justice

1:16:08 > 1:16:14system and as such, I fear that the cosy club of the criminal justice

1:16:14 > 1:16:17establishment is closing in on itself to prevent this from fully

1:16:17 > 1:16:22ever being exposed. What is joint enterprise? Joint enterprise has

1:16:22 > 1:16:27been applied in cases for over 300 years although it is a common law

1:16:27 > 1:16:29which has never been passed by Parliament. The doctrine allows for

1:16:29 > 1:16:33more than one person to be charged with the same offence, despite the

1:16:33 > 1:16:38fact they may have played a different or no role in the crime.

1:16:38 > 1:16:41Joint enterprise applies to all crimes but in recent years it has

1:16:41 > 1:16:46been particularly used as a way to prosecute murder. Especially but not

1:16:46 > 1:16:50exclusively in cases involving groups of young men. This is

1:16:50 > 1:16:54obviously a very emotive issue particularly for families of murder

1:16:54 > 1:16:58victims. And no one is suggesting that those who commit murder or

1:16:58 > 1:17:02knowingly and intentionally assisting committing murder should

1:17:02 > 1:17:07not face the full force of the law. However, nor should the evidential

1:17:07 > 1:17:13bar for serious offences like murder be lower by virtue of presents or

1:17:13 > 1:17:18association with the principal offender, as we have all too often

1:17:18 > 1:17:21seen. Indeed there are many cases and I'm sure many of these will come

1:17:21 > 1:17:26to light today where people are serving life sentences when it is

1:17:26 > 1:17:30clear they did not commit murder but they were found guilty under the old

1:17:30 > 1:17:39or Ron Lock of parasitic process at Oriel liability. Furthermore, many

1:17:39 > 1:17:43others are convicted as second party is carrying the same sentences as

1:17:43 > 1:17:47the principal based on a prosecution narrative of gang and association,

1:17:47 > 1:17:52even though in tent and foresight are unproven and where the secondary

1:17:52 > 1:17:57party was not physically present at the scene or withdrew from the

1:17:57 > 1:18:01scene. There is a further flaw in how the doctrine is applied when one

1:18:01 > 1:18:06looks at the profile of those convicted of murder. The majority

1:18:06 > 1:18:10are of black and ethnic minority backgrounds and the vast majority

1:18:10 > 1:18:15are young with many teenagers serving life for a secondary or

1:18:15 > 1:18:21parasitic role. I will say more about this, as will others, later,

1:18:21 > 1:18:26but we have to ask questions about the disproportionate use of such

1:18:26 > 1:18:30doctrines within certain communities. There is also a

1:18:30 > 1:18:33political context which is relevant to this debate today. I will briefly

1:18:33 > 1:18:37give way.I am so grateful to my honourable friend. Does she

1:18:37 > 1:18:46recognise that in those communities where 14, 16, 19-year-olds have gone

1:18:46 > 1:18:50to prison for significant time when it is absolutely clear to the

1:18:50 > 1:18:54community they have not committed murder, and is in her community,

1:18:54 > 1:18:59what it actually does, it undermines the sense of the justice system in

1:18:59 > 1:19:03the black community, less people cooperate with the release, less

1:19:03 > 1:19:06people have faith in the justice system, and it undermines all she is

1:19:06 > 1:19:12attempting to do?I am hoping to give everybody ten minutes, the

1:19:12 > 1:19:18danger is, I will have to drop it, if you intervene.I fully agree with

1:19:18 > 1:19:22what the honourable member said. I will try to make some progress.

1:19:22 > 1:19:26There is a political context, there was when the law began to be

1:19:26 > 1:19:32overused and extended in its use in the 1990s, but there is also a

1:19:32 > 1:19:35different political context today, as my honourable friend has just

1:19:35 > 1:19:39said. We know more clearly understand the consequences of the

1:19:39 > 1:19:42disproportionate and unfair replications of the law against

1:19:42 > 1:19:46certain groups and I was pleased to see the Government did recognise

1:19:46 > 1:19:54some of this when they launched the limey review and the Prime

1:19:54 > 1:19:57Minister's recent comments about burning injustices -- the Lammy

1:19:57 > 1:20:01review. I hope the Prime Minister can live up to the rhetoric. The

1:20:01 > 1:20:07practice under law have been far too slow to catch up with the changing

1:20:07 > 1:20:11mood in the country -- the practice and the law. I will look at what the

1:20:11 > 1:20:15Supreme Court ruling did and did not say and what needs to be addressed.

1:20:15 > 1:20:19The ruling was clear that the law governing secondary liability had

1:20:19 > 1:20:24taken a wrong turn and it had resulted in the erroneous

1:20:24 > 1:20:28application of the law. However, it also set out that in order for

1:20:28 > 1:20:33appeals to be heard out of time, a substantial injustice test, not the

1:20:33 > 1:20:38usual unsafe conviction test, would be applied. The substantial

1:20:38 > 1:20:44injustice test was not clearly set out and has never been set out by

1:20:44 > 1:20:48this Parliament and subsequently it has been tested through caselaw and

1:20:48 > 1:20:53it is now almost impossibly high bar for people to pass. That is why

1:20:53 > 1:20:57there has yet to be a single successful appeal awarded by the

1:20:57 > 1:21:03Court of Appeal nearly two years on. Thirdly and finally, in our opinion,

1:21:03 > 1:21:08the Supreme Court failed to address another question put before it which

1:21:08 > 1:21:11is, does joint enterprise over criminalise secondary parties? What

1:21:11 > 1:21:16needs to change in the law? Firstly, what needs to change going forward,

1:21:16 > 1:21:21and secondly, how can we put right some of the injustices of the past?

1:21:21 > 1:21:31Going forward, what is clear is that joint enterprise continues to be

1:21:31 > 1:21:33overused and is disproportionately used against groups of young men,

1:21:33 > 1:21:35particularly those from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. I saw

1:21:35 > 1:21:39this first hand at a recent case in Moss Side were 11 young black men

1:21:39 > 1:21:46from that area faced charges of murder. Seven of those were

1:21:46 > 1:21:50convicted of murder and four of manslaughter, the youngest of which

1:21:50 > 1:21:55was only 14 and many of them were not previously known to the police.

1:21:55 > 1:21:59As research by the Manchester Metropolitan University has shown in

1:21:59 > 1:22:05their study, dangerous liaisons, over half of all of those serving

1:22:05 > 1:22:09joint enterprise life sentences are children or Young adults and over

1:22:09 > 1:22:13half are from black and ethnic minority backgrounds. I will have to

1:22:13 > 1:22:21make some progress. I'm sure someone else will give way later. The

1:22:21 > 1:22:25extensive research also found the establishment of a gang narrative

1:22:25 > 1:22:28which often relies on neighbourhood narratives and racialised

1:22:28 > 1:22:34assumptions and by loose associations and things such as

1:22:34 > 1:22:42social media tags and videos, they have been critical step to security

1:22:42 > 1:22:46-- critical to securing many joint enterprise convictions. This is why

1:22:46 > 1:22:49my honourable friend has raised this in his review and the Home Affairs

1:22:49 > 1:22:56Select Committee is looking into it. Joint enterprise cases continue post

1:22:56 > 1:23:01the Supreme Court ruling, albeit under new CPS guidance, but I think

1:23:01 > 1:23:05that remains problematic. Three areas we want the Government to look

1:23:05 > 1:23:08at the future cases. Proportionality, and is this being

1:23:08 > 1:23:12used correctly and disproportionately against certain

1:23:12 > 1:23:15groups? We asked the government to do what the Supreme Court failed to

1:23:15 > 1:23:20do which is establish whether joint enterprise over criminalise the

1:23:20 > 1:23:25secondary parties. Related to this, we need the data. This is urgent,

1:23:25 > 1:23:29collating the data about who is being charged, convicted and where

1:23:29 > 1:23:35and this is long overdue. Finally, the long-awaited outcome of the

1:23:35 > 1:23:39review of the CPS guidance needs to be brought forward and quickly and

1:23:39 > 1:23:43it must include clearer guidance for prosecution discretion so that

1:23:43 > 1:23:54lesser offences can be brought against secondary parties in many of

1:23:54 > 1:23:56these cases. The final point I want to make is about the retrospective

1:23:56 > 1:23:59cases and putting right the injustices of the past. We are not

1:23:59 > 1:24:02asking for automatic reopening of every single case. It is right there

1:24:02 > 1:24:07must be a test but this test is now so impossibly high that no cases

1:24:07 > 1:24:12have successfully been heard by the Court of Appeal and the criminal

1:24:12 > 1:24:17cases review commission has yet to recommend a single case coming back.

1:24:17 > 1:24:22Despite having received 99 fresh applications and reviewing 90 more.

1:24:22 > 1:24:28Appeal judges seem utterly dismissive of these cases. Unlike in

1:24:28 > 1:24:32the usual appeal case where the threshold is the possibility of an

1:24:32 > 1:24:36unsafe conviction, applicants in the case of the wrong law of joint

1:24:36 > 1:24:39enterprise are also required to demonstrate that as well as being

1:24:39 > 1:24:45unsafe, the correct law, they also have to show that they would have

1:24:45 > 1:24:48been a substantial difference to the outcome. In most of the cases this

1:24:48 > 1:24:56would simply be there may have been done so. We believe the substantial

1:24:56 > 1:24:58injustice test needs establishing by Parliament in law and it should make

1:24:58 > 1:25:06clear that the threshold is may and not wood. We think the Appeal Courts

1:25:06 > 1:25:11should be allowed to consider the ongoing effect of the conviction on

1:25:11 > 1:25:14the applicant and critically take account of the applicant's age,

1:25:14 > 1:25:20mental health and other vulnerabilities. The old or wrongful

1:25:20 > 1:25:25sight test now applied correctly to adolescence or those suffering with

1:25:25 > 1:25:29learning or mental difficulties would surely provide a substantial

1:25:29 > 1:25:33change to their conviction and today we would not expect an immature

1:25:33 > 1:25:37teenager or someone with learning difficulties to understand the old

1:25:37 > 1:25:44week for site test. I want the government to urgently consider a

1:25:44 > 1:25:49mechanism for clarifying the threshold about these cases. To be

1:25:49 > 1:25:52clear, this is not about reopening the floodgates, but if the law had

1:25:52 > 1:25:57been wrong for 30 years during which time hundreds if not thousands of

1:25:57 > 1:26:02mandatory life sentences were handed out under this old wrong law, it

1:26:02 > 1:26:07stands to reason that at least some, not a tiny few, of the cases are

1:26:07 > 1:26:13clear injustice which the courts are currently failing to put right. In

1:26:13 > 1:26:17conclusion, we can all agree I think here today in this House that the

1:26:17 > 1:26:24law did indeed take a wrong turn. Now that needs putting right. The

1:26:24 > 1:26:28establishment is evidently not putting itself right. So government

1:26:28 > 1:26:33and Parliament need to act. We urgently need a review of the use

1:26:33 > 1:26:37and scope of prosecutions brought under joint enterprise, particularly

1:26:37 > 1:26:40its disproportionate use against young and black and ethnic minority

1:26:40 > 1:26:45men, and we also need urgent clarification on the qualification

1:26:45 > 1:26:50for appeal so we can put right decades of substantial injustices

1:26:50 > 1:26:53and unsafe convictions leading to many serving life sentences for

1:26:53 > 1:26:59murder as they did not commit.The question is as on the order paper

1:26:59 > 1:27:07with a ten minute limit, Andrew Mitchell. I welcome you back to your

1:27:07 > 1:27:11chair. I congratulate the honourable lady for securing this debate and I

1:27:11 > 1:27:14thank Mr Speaker and the backbench committee for granting it. I draw

1:27:14 > 1:27:18the House's attention to my outside interests are set out in the

1:27:18 > 1:27:23register. We are holding this debate today because we know thousands of

1:27:23 > 1:27:27people have been prosecuted under joint enterprise over the last

1:27:27 > 1:27:31decade alone with a profound fear that some of these convictions are

1:27:31 > 1:27:36unsound. I'm deeply conscious that behind each of these crimes lies a

1:27:36 > 1:27:39victim, usually murdered, with grieving loved ones whose lives have

1:27:39 > 1:27:45been changed forever and ruined. My heart goes out to all of those and

1:27:45 > 1:27:51their families who have suffered in that way.

1:27:51 > 1:27:55We also know there is a wealth of evidence that suggests that joint

1:27:55 > 1:28:00enterprise has both convicted people in error, and wholly

1:28:00 > 1:28:03disproportionately affected those who identify as black, Asian and

1:28:03 > 1:28:06minority ethnic. Young people from ethnic communities have essentially

1:28:06 > 1:28:13been hoovered up for peripheral and some cases nonexistent involvement

1:28:13 > 1:28:21in serious criminal acts. The Supreme Court decision in the case

1:28:21 > 1:28:29of Jogi has proved that the previous interpretation of the law is wrong.

1:28:29 > 1:28:33To date, only a very limited number of joint enterprise convictions have

1:28:33 > 1:28:40been quashed. To find a defendant guilty of a criminal offence, a jury

1:28:40 > 1:28:44must be satisfied that the defendant both committed the crime and had the

1:28:44 > 1:28:48requisite state of mind to carry out the crime. Yet the law on joint

1:28:48 > 1:28:52enterprise and second reliability more generally was developed by the

1:28:52 > 1:28:54courts to ensure that all participants in a criminal

1:28:54 > 1:28:58enterprise could be held accountable. Indeed, it has been a

1:28:58 > 1:29:02key tool when prosecuting suspected gang members. There has been a

1:29:02 > 1:29:07failure by our criminal justice system to distinguish between gangs

1:29:07 > 1:29:11and groups. The house will understand that not all members of

1:29:11 > 1:29:15groups have a criminal purpose, and not all members of gangs or groups

1:29:15 > 1:29:19join in when there is an incident. Humans are by nature social animals.

1:29:19 > 1:29:25People naturally hang about in groups, teams or protest marches,

1:29:25 > 1:29:30and it does not mean that if an incident occurs, everyone the group

1:29:30 > 1:29:35intended it to happen. We know how indiscriminate the law joint

1:29:35 > 1:29:37enterprise has been, and I congratulate the Right Honourable

1:29:37 > 1:29:46member for Tottenham in the work he has done in uncovering the outcomes

1:29:46 > 1:29:55for black, Asian and ethnic minority people. One group has done so much

1:29:55 > 1:29:58good work exposing the inadequacies of the criminal justice and legal

1:29:58 > 1:30:03system in this respect. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who

1:30:03 > 1:30:05as Home Secretary, ensured that the voice of black mental health was

1:30:05 > 1:30:10heard in Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is no accident that the

1:30:10 > 1:30:16bulk of the prison population convicted under joint enterprise are

1:30:16 > 1:30:20young black, Asian and ethnic minority men. It is an uneasy and

1:30:20 > 1:30:25difficult truth that an association may exist consciously or otherwise

1:30:25 > 1:30:29in the mind of police, prosecutors and jewellery is between being a

1:30:29 > 1:30:33young ethnic minority mail and being in a gang and therefore being

1:30:33 > 1:30:35involved in urban violence. Such findings are echoed by studies into

1:30:35 > 1:30:40the ethnic profile prisoners convicted on the basis of joint

1:30:40 > 1:30:46enterprise. One study found that for young people convicted under joint

1:30:46 > 1:30:51enterprise, nearly 60% were black, Asian and minority-owned thing.

1:30:51 > 1:30:56There is no real suspicion that justice has miscarried in many joint

1:30:56 > 1:31:05enterprise cases. Juries were not directed, even the serious cases.

1:31:05 > 1:31:08The highest standards of legal accuracy that we should expect are

1:31:08 > 1:31:13simply not being met. In such cases, we rightly expect the appeal system

1:31:13 > 1:31:17to function and to function effectively. Even as recently as

1:31:17 > 1:31:21last year, prosecutors are trying to find an easy way to convict, as was

1:31:21 > 1:31:26shown by the case of Lewis. Thankfully, the judge found there

1:31:26 > 1:31:30was no case to answer. The prosecution appealed that ruling and

1:31:30 > 1:31:34rightly lost. There is now a logjam in our criminal justice system, with

1:31:34 > 1:31:39the Court of Appeal appearing wrong later blocked appeals by joint

1:31:39 > 1:31:45enterprise prisoners. The burden of the substantial injustice test to

1:31:45 > 1:31:49which I have referred has been passed to the prisoner, which

1:31:49 > 1:31:56requires the person convicted to satisfy the Court of Appeal that he

1:31:56 > 1:32:02would not have been convicted. Instead, the question should be, is

1:32:02 > 1:32:06there a realistic possibility that he would not have been convicted?

1:32:06 > 1:32:10Which was, I understand, the legal precedent and was a test previously

1:32:10 > 1:32:16applied, in the case of McInnis versus Her Majesty's advocate. Along

1:32:16 > 1:32:20with the honourable member for Ealing North, to whom I page a bit,

1:32:20 > 1:32:25I visited Alex Hendry in prison, who, shortly after being convicted

1:32:25 > 1:32:30of joint enterprise murder, was diagnosed with autism. I had taken a

1:32:30 > 1:32:34close interest in this case in the last two years and I think it is one

1:32:34 > 1:32:38of immense concern. As we have learned recently, the police and CPS

1:32:38 > 1:32:47are often very difficult to deal with overexposure to over

1:32:47 > 1:32:50disclosure. Evidence available to the prosecutor is more comprehensive

1:32:50 > 1:32:55now, with CCTV and phones, and this makes it easier in theory could

1:32:55 > 1:33:01differentiate between those who join in on those who don't. -- in theory

1:33:01 > 1:33:08to differentiate between. The right to a fair trial is a basic human

1:33:08 > 1:33:13right. I worry that in these cases our courts are too keen to block

1:33:13 > 1:33:18appeals by those who may have been convicted by error of the courts.

1:33:18 > 1:33:24This only serves to undermine our faith in the justice system. There

1:33:24 > 1:33:27is a tendency to believe in Britain that we have the best criminal

1:33:27 > 1:33:32justice system in the world. I put it to the Has that our attitude to

1:33:32 > 1:33:38the justice system is riddled with complacency, a complacency which is

1:33:38 > 1:33:41wholly unjustified. I believe this view would be borne out by any

1:33:41 > 1:33:45fair-minded person who focuses on the issue of joint enterprise. The

1:33:45 > 1:33:49whole House should be grateful to the Right Honourable member for

1:33:49 > 1:33:55Tottenham for his recent report in respect of the treatment by the

1:33:55 > 1:33:57legal system of black, Asian and ethnic minorities in Britain. There

1:33:57 > 1:34:02are many in the legal profession, quite apart from the Right

1:34:02 > 1:34:06Honourable gentleman, who argue that it is simply unacceptable that in

1:34:06 > 1:34:112018 virtually all senior members of the judiciary are white men from

1:34:11 > 1:34:15privileged backgrounds. This simply does not reflect the society that is

1:34:15 > 1:34:18Britain today and which the judiciary serves, and we shouldn't

1:34:18 > 1:34:25forget that all too often in Britain, injustice is not remedied

1:34:25 > 1:34:33by the state, or indeed by members of this House. Who can forget that

1:34:33 > 1:34:36the manifest injustice of the Birmingham six was not remedied by

1:34:36 > 1:34:41the police of the statement by the indefatigable work of two members of

1:34:41 > 1:34:55this House. Still today, the poor victims' families of that outrage

1:34:55 > 1:35:01have not achieved closure, as the ongoing coroner's enquiry in

1:35:01 > 1:35:05Birmingham so demonstrates. I hope that following this debate, the

1:35:05 > 1:35:11media will take a close interest in the cases where joint enterprise may

1:35:11 > 1:35:21have led to innocent people being convicted. An organisation formed in

1:35:21 > 1:35:262010, to whom the Honourable Lady quite rightly referred, is now

1:35:26 > 1:35:32supporting over 800 prisoners, many serving mandatory sentences of life,

1:35:32 > 1:35:3722 years, the youngest of whom was just 12 years when charged. I also

1:35:37 > 1:35:40hope that the justice select committee, with its considerable

1:35:40 > 1:35:44authority, and we see the chairman in his place today, will not allow

1:35:44 > 1:35:48these matters to rest until they have been very fully examined by

1:35:48 > 1:36:00Parliament so that we can be assured that justice has been delivered.May

1:36:00 > 1:36:04I also welcome you back to this place after the tragic circumstances

1:36:04 > 1:36:08that befell your family. I would like to thank my honourable friend,

1:36:08 > 1:36:15the member for Manchester Central, for the very thorough way in which

1:36:15 > 1:36:19she has set for the issues of this debate. And indeed, the Right

1:36:19 > 1:36:24Honourable member for Sutton Coldfield for the issues he has

1:36:24 > 1:36:30raised, and the mention of my predecessor, Chris Mullin, who has

1:36:30 > 1:36:34an excellent track record on this issue. This is a very important

1:36:34 > 1:36:38debate, and a difficult one for politicians to deal with, because I

1:36:38 > 1:36:43want to first say that my sympathies today are always with the victims of

1:36:43 > 1:36:48crime. People convicted of murder must be subject to the full weight

1:36:48 > 1:36:53of the law, as should someone safely convicted of joint enterprise.

1:36:53 > 1:36:58However, the change in the low in 2016 by the Supreme Court is, in my

1:36:58 > 1:37:07view, not being implemented correctly. It said that the law had

1:37:07 > 1:37:13taken a long term in 1984, and that is clearly correct. The prices --

1:37:13 > 1:37:18the cases prior to Jogi could only go back to the Court of Appeal if

1:37:18 > 1:37:22they proved their conviction had a substantial injustice. An injustice

1:37:22 > 1:37:28is carrying on for many who are still in prison today and can't be

1:37:28 > 1:37:32granted an appeal because their cases are out of time and therefore

1:37:32 > 1:37:36they have to pass this substantial injustice test. This is where I want

1:37:36 > 1:37:44to focus my remarks. This means that those convicted more than 28 days

1:37:44 > 1:37:47before the change announced by the Supreme Court have to prove this

1:37:47 > 1:37:52substantial injustice. That means that the change in the law would

1:37:52 > 1:37:56have categorically made a difference. As has been outlined,

1:37:56 > 1:38:01that is an enormous bar to reach. Whereas those people who were

1:38:01 > 1:38:06convicted in the 28 days only before the change have to show their

1:38:06 > 1:38:13conviction is unsafe, a much lesser test of proof. In that change, the

1:38:13 > 1:38:17law might have made a reasonable difference. That means in a

1:38:17 > 1:38:20hypothetical situation that two people convicted of the same crime

1:38:20 > 1:38:24with identical evidence are being treated differently in the eyes of

1:38:24 > 1:38:31the law. That simply is wrong and needs to change. It is no surprise

1:38:31 > 1:38:35that of the 800 men, women and children, and a lot were children

1:38:35 > 1:38:44when these convictions happen, that are supported by the support group,

1:38:44 > 1:38:47not one has successfully appealed their conviction since the supreme

1:38:47 > 1:38:52court decision in Jogi. I would like to place on record my support for

1:38:52 > 1:38:57this group, who I think have worked extremely hard in raising not just

1:38:57 > 1:39:00the issues surrounding this but also the support they give to the

1:39:00 > 1:39:06families involved in this. The British justice system is one that I

1:39:06 > 1:39:14feel is a country in most cases we can be proud of. But when mistakes,

1:39:14 > 1:39:17misinterpretation or miscarriages of justice occur, they must be put

1:39:17 > 1:39:23right quickly. Under British justice system is judged by the way they

1:39:23 > 1:39:26react to that as the way that they implement the law itself. It is

1:39:26 > 1:39:31quite clear to me that the justice system is failing those people who

1:39:31 > 1:39:38are still in prison, often after many years, and who were convicted

1:39:38 > 1:39:43before these 28 days, before the ruling of the Supreme Court. I feel

1:39:43 > 1:39:49the direction of needs are lining in all cases should be judged against

1:39:49 > 1:39:53the lesser test of proof that the conviction is unsafe. This would

1:39:53 > 1:39:56mean that people who have been convicted fairly, equally and

1:39:56 > 1:40:05reasonably against the new test that the Supreme Court has said when they

1:40:05 > 1:40:08put right the long-term decision, they will still be in prison, quite

1:40:08 > 1:40:13rightly, and serve the full weight of the sentence that was passed on

1:40:13 > 1:40:18them. However, for those people who will no longer be found guilty under

1:40:18 > 1:40:22the new rules, they will get their freedom and whatever follows that as

1:40:22 > 1:40:28well. And that is where the focus of this debate, for me, is so

1:40:28 > 1:40:40important. The outcome of this would be right and prop your -- proper,

1:40:40 > 1:40:45and would be seen as fair, and reasonable. For me, as long as

1:40:45 > 1:40:49people are being judged against this ridiculously high bar, British

1:40:49 > 1:40:53justice is failing the people in prison who have been judged under

1:40:53 > 1:40:59the original application of a wrong law.Thank you very much, Mr Deputy

1:40:59 > 1:41:03Speaker. And may I join every other member of this Housing welcoming you

1:41:03 > 1:41:09back to the chair. Can I congratulate the Honourable member

1:41:09 > 1:41:12for Manchester Central and my right honourable friend, the member for

1:41:12 > 1:41:16Sutton Coldfield, and they Honourable member for Tottenham, for

1:41:16 > 1:41:20securing this debate. I wanted to speak on it for a number of reasons.

1:41:20 > 1:41:24First, as chair of the justice committee of this House, it is

1:41:24 > 1:41:30important that we do keep this matter under review, I think, and

1:41:30 > 1:41:32our committee has had some consideration of this matter in the

1:41:32 > 1:41:38past and no doubt well again. Secondly, because I have throughout

1:41:38 > 1:41:45my adult life been a practising barrister, and I concern myself very

1:41:45 > 1:41:49much with the justice system, it's something I'm part of and believe

1:41:49 > 1:41:53in. It was a belief in that system that was one of the reasons that

1:41:53 > 1:41:57make me come to this House, and I think it is massively important that

1:41:57 > 1:42:04it does what it is supposed to do. If we fail to get it right, we

1:42:04 > 1:42:09should not be afraid to say so. Thirdly, I have a constituent whose

1:42:09 > 1:42:16partner, and I think he is in the gallery today, is serving a life

1:42:16 > 1:42:20sentence with I think a 23 year tariff as a result of the

1:42:20 > 1:42:28application of the joint enterprise principle. It was a case of murder,

1:42:28 > 1:42:34a situation in which he made no bones about having been party to an

1:42:34 > 1:42:41offence of dishonesty but was convicted of joint enterprise as the

1:42:41 > 1:42:44result of an act of violence perpetrated by another individual,

1:42:44 > 1:42:49so it comes exactly into the cases that we are concerned with. For all

1:42:49 > 1:42:56those reasons, this is an important debate.

1:42:56 > 1:43:00One of the things that has struck me since I have been in the House is

1:43:00 > 1:43:06how in comparison with the past this House takes comparatively little

1:43:06 > 1:43:12interest in the of our criminal justice law. Through the 60s and

1:43:12 > 1:43:1670s, members of this House, through private Members' Bill or the

1:43:16 > 1:43:22pressure they put on government to make changes in government

1:43:22 > 1:43:25legislation, they affected major changes for the better in members

1:43:25 > 1:43:29aspects -- many aspects of our criminal law, reforms in relation to

1:43:29 > 1:43:33homicide and the abolition of the death penalty, the changes to the

1:43:33 > 1:43:38law in relation to the criminalisation of abortion and

1:43:38 > 1:43:49homosexuality, a vast number of other really important

1:43:52 > 1:43:54matters of criminal justice reform emanated from debating this House.

1:43:54 > 1:43:56Sadly too often that gets squeezed out in the current climate and

1:43:56 > 1:43:59perhaps we should debate it more. I will give way.I am reluctant to

1:43:59 > 1:44:02intervene on such a good speech. But he knows of my interest in terms of

1:44:02 > 1:44:04co-chairing the miscarriage of justice parliamentary group. Does he

1:44:04 > 1:44:10not think the criminal Case review commission is lacking in terms of

1:44:10 > 1:44:14not intervening enough or early enough and persistently enough in

1:44:14 > 1:44:18these cases?There are a number of areas where changes are needed. I

1:44:18 > 1:44:23have great respect of the work of the commission but I am conscious

1:44:23 > 1:44:27that they are under pressure both in terms of resource and terms of

1:44:27 > 1:44:35reference. It would not be unreasonable to look at... Cases of

1:44:35 > 1:44:40miscarriage of justice occur. I know full well. I remember vividly

1:44:40 > 1:44:44prosecuting one wants, not in a murder case, but in a rape case, and

1:44:44 > 1:44:48at the time that evidence and legal test appeared compelling. Thanks to

1:44:48 > 1:44:53the work of the criminal cases review commission, evidence came to

1:44:53 > 1:44:56light and I had no hesitation in not seeking to resist the appeal when it

1:44:56 > 1:45:01came to the Court of Appeal for the second time. It is also important

1:45:01 > 1:45:06that they have the means to carry out their very important job, and

1:45:06 > 1:45:10their role as significant. But there are other gaps that we must look at

1:45:10 > 1:45:16as well. Everybody accepts now that there was a serious departure from

1:45:16 > 1:45:28good reason in the case in Privy Council in, I think, 1958. The odd

1:45:28 > 1:45:34thing about it, when you read the case, is that the judgment which was

1:45:34 > 1:45:39described as taking a wrong turn in the Supreme Court was actually

1:45:39 > 1:45:44almost not based upon the principal facts or arguments that had brought

1:45:44 > 1:45:50the appeal to start with. The noble lord, the member of the Privy

1:45:50 > 1:45:54Council, giving the judgment in that case rather went off on a tangent

1:45:54 > 1:46:01and developed what was then regarded as the concept of parasitic

1:46:01 > 1:46:04accessory liability. The matter could have been resolved on the

1:46:04 > 1:46:11facts of the own case. But sat out very well and what is a detailed

1:46:11 > 1:46:13judgment of a very strongly constituted Supreme Court. I

1:46:13 > 1:46:20certainly do not fault the judgment of the Supreme Court at all. It is

1:46:20 > 1:46:23exceedingly well reasoned and it is significant, not only did the

1:46:23 > 1:46:34president of the Supreme Court, the noble lord, but also that current

1:46:34 > 1:46:39president, and then lord chief justice, took very unusually the

1:46:39 > 1:46:42step of sitting in the Supreme Court because of his experience in

1:46:42 > 1:46:49criminal justice matters. Can I just make this point? Intellectually, the

1:46:49 > 1:46:54Supreme Court got the answer right. The approach which had encompassed

1:46:54 > 1:46:59so many people into secondary liability in homicide of faxes was

1:46:59 > 1:47:09wrong. However, I think there remain practical errors in its application.

1:47:09 > 1:47:13Can he explain to me as a layman why this extremely well written judgment

1:47:13 > 1:47:19which I have also read, having been made, the criminal justice system

1:47:19 > 1:47:23has not reacted with enormous alarm and immediately set in train

1:47:23 > 1:47:26reviewing the very large number of cases which are affected by that

1:47:26 > 1:47:33judgment?I think that brings me to... There is a concern that in

1:47:33 > 1:47:40practice the effect to the bringing of appeals out of time, the wait

1:47:40 > 1:47:45been interpreted in cases and others, it has been particularly

1:47:45 > 1:47:50restrictive. I think that is the difficulty. It is very clear that

1:47:50 > 1:47:57the Court of Appeal has taken a very narrow interpretation of the

1:47:57 > 1:48:00substantial injustice point. I do not think that necessarily had to be

1:48:00 > 1:48:06the case on the basis of the case. Let me just say, it was always made

1:48:06 > 1:48:09very clear in the judgment of the Supreme Court but one should not

1:48:09 > 1:48:13assume the case would mean every conviction for murder on the basis

1:48:13 > 1:48:18of joint enterprise would be overturned. Even where a conviction

1:48:18 > 1:48:24for murder was overturned, there would not be many cases of a

1:48:24 > 1:48:27conviction for manslaughter where that was appropriate but the level

1:48:27 > 1:48:33of foresight was less. That is the important thing we have to look at.

1:48:33 > 1:48:38But it is really important nonetheless we get to a situation

1:48:38 > 1:48:41where people are convicted certainly of offences where they have done

1:48:41 > 1:48:45wrong but they should be convicted of and sentenced for offences which

1:48:45 > 1:48:51properly reflect the level of culpability of their behaviour. And

1:48:51 > 1:48:56when we do not get that right, that undermines, understandably,

1:48:56 > 1:49:00confidence in the system. That is my concern and it is shared by other

1:49:00 > 1:49:03honourable members who have ready spoken about the difficulty in

1:49:03 > 1:49:07bringing cases out of time to the Court of Appeal. I think that is

1:49:07 > 1:49:11something that needs to be looked at. If the president makes it

1:49:11 > 1:49:14difficult for the court, perhaps Parliament and government should

1:49:14 > 1:49:19indeed consider it. I observe in passing that is in any event the

1:49:19 > 1:49:22proviso to the criminal appeal act which would mean that if one is the

1:49:22 > 1:49:28case has been heard no material injustice has occurred, nonetheless,

1:49:28 > 1:49:33the conviction can be upheld. At the moment, we have a double test, test

1:49:33 > 1:49:36to bring the appeal out of time and also the issue of the proviso. The

1:49:36 > 1:49:41difference being of course in the test to bring the appeal out of

1:49:41 > 1:49:46time, the onus is on the appellant to meet the test, whereas

1:49:46 > 1:49:50subsequently, the test in relation to the proviso under the criminal

1:49:50 > 1:49:54appeal act, the onus is on the prosecution. That is something to be

1:49:54 > 1:49:58considered. The other point I wanted to make, when the Justice Committee

1:49:58 > 1:50:01looked at the matter with some care in evidence sessions in the last

1:50:01 > 1:50:05Parliament, this has to be seen in the context of a very unsatisfactory

1:50:05 > 1:50:12state of the law of homicide as a whole. A distinction that we murder

1:50:12 > 1:50:16and manslaughter remains extremely clear in this country. -- a

1:50:16 > 1:50:19distinction between. So far government has not taken up the

1:50:19 > 1:50:23virginity of having it examined. The logical route would be to ask the

1:50:23 > 1:50:27Law Commission to examine that. In evidence to the Justice Committee in

1:50:27 > 1:50:34the last Parliament Professor David Ormerod, deputy chair of the Law

1:50:34 > 1:50:40Commission, senior commission for criminal law, distinguished academic

1:50:40 > 1:50:43queens council, he identified exactly that point and he said this,

1:50:43 > 1:50:50the review of the law of homicide would be still representing the best

1:50:50 > 1:50:57solution which could encompass a decision, enabling us to encompass

1:50:57 > 1:51:04the consequences thereafter that stem from it. Referring to the

1:51:04 > 1:51:07Supreme Court's decision, they are constrained by the facts of the case

1:51:07 > 1:51:13and the nature of the argument, that is the common law system. It was not

1:51:13 > 1:51:17possible for them to offer a comprehensive review relating to

1:51:17 > 1:51:21secondary liability which the Law Commission could do. One of my first

1:51:21 > 1:51:25asks of the government as well as revisiting the test for bringing the

1:51:25 > 1:51:29appeal is of time, the second task, take up the Law Commission's

1:51:29 > 1:51:34willingness to examine that area. There is a vast expertise in the Law

1:51:34 > 1:51:40Commission which I believe is sometimes underused. They can look

1:51:40 > 1:51:44dispassionately. They can look at secondary liability and put it into

1:51:44 > 1:51:47the broader difficulties we have around the Law of manslaughter

1:51:47 > 1:51:51because we also have compelling evidence from criminal

1:51:51 > 1:51:54practitioners, representatives of the Criminal Bar Association, about

1:51:54 > 1:51:59the real difficulty the complexity of giving directions to a jury is in

1:51:59 > 1:52:04manslaughter causes and back very frequently judges having given most

1:52:04 > 1:52:09careful directions, after discussion among council, nonetheless, they

1:52:09 > 1:52:13find repeatedly the jury returns sending back note seeking for

1:52:13 > 1:52:17further clarification. The more lack of clarity there is, the greater the

1:52:17 > 1:52:24risk of injustice occurring. I hope that can be resolved and I would

1:52:24 > 1:52:29suggest to the Minister that it would be a sensible and measured

1:52:29 > 1:52:33approach to get an intellectually sound route forward to this

1:52:33 > 1:52:39intractable issue. The other matter I would ask the Minister to look at

1:52:39 > 1:52:43is the review by the criminal prosecution service of their

1:52:43 > 1:52:47guidelines which again we heard evidence about. The fact the review

1:52:47 > 1:52:51is taking place is welcome. The honourable lady and the member from

1:52:51 > 1:52:55Manchester Central and my honourable friend the Sutton Coldfield have

1:52:55 > 1:52:59referred to the disproportionate way in which the use of prosecutions

1:52:59 > 1:53:04using joint enterprise under the impact on certain communities. It is

1:53:04 > 1:53:08a fact the doctrine that developed some 300 years ago can have effects

1:53:08 > 1:53:13upon the Britain and social life of 21st-century Britain which is very

1:53:13 > 1:53:19much different from the way it was being developed by Lord Hale in

1:53:19 > 1:53:24about 1670. We do need to have a means of applying that prosecuting a

1:53:24 > 1:53:27real tool in a way that reflects modern society. I hope the public

1:53:27 > 1:53:33interest element of the guidelines will be strengthened to consider the

1:53:33 > 1:53:36appropriateness of using this particular tool in the way in which

1:53:36 > 1:53:42it does given the impact it has upon certain communities within the UK. I

1:53:42 > 1:53:45hope those are constructive suggestions we can take forward from

1:53:45 > 1:53:50this debate.Thank you very much indeed. It is a pleasure to follow

1:53:50 > 1:53:54the honourable gentleman and I take from his words and from the emotion

1:53:54 > 1:54:00behind his words that the door to the just select committee is now

1:54:00 > 1:54:04open and that there may be sometime in the future when the Justice

1:54:04 > 1:54:08Select Committee will consider this matter because I think that is of

1:54:08 > 1:54:14the places where we can seek to bring an end to this horrendous

1:54:14 > 1:54:17disproportionate nightmare, this stain on British jurisprudence and

1:54:17 > 1:54:23this appalling situation in which 40 seconds can lead to 12 years, or

1:54:23 > 1:54:28someone who just happens to be within a group of people can find

1:54:28 > 1:54:31themselves facing the best part of their young life in prison for

1:54:31 > 1:54:35something they could not stop even if they wanted to. And it is often

1:54:35 > 1:54:41said that the House is at its worst when it is unanimous, when we all

1:54:41 > 1:54:45agree on something. I think this is the exception to that rule and I

1:54:45 > 1:54:49have to say tribute has already been paid to Charlotte Hendry, and other

1:54:49 > 1:54:53campaigners, I would like to think that even without the informed and

1:54:53 > 1:54:59passionate prodding, people like my right honourable friend the member

1:54:59 > 1:55:03for Manchester Central, the honourable gentleman, member for

1:55:03 > 1:55:05Sutton Coldfield, they would have put this matter forward because it

1:55:05 > 1:55:09is a stain on the British legal system. The Prime Minister has

1:55:09 > 1:55:14referred to the burning sense of injustice. This injustice is burning

1:55:14 > 1:55:17so strongly and brightly, the smokers virtually choking us and we

1:55:17 > 1:55:22cannot see the sense and sanity of the Laufer the obfuscation that has

1:55:22 > 1:55:26come around from this ridiculous piece of legislation, originally

1:55:26 > 1:55:35brought in to deal with noughties, very often a pastime problems of

1:55:35 > 1:55:41this House. -- to deal with dualling. The idea that there could

1:55:41 > 1:55:46be parasitic accessory liability for people dualling in Hyde Park

1:55:46 > 1:55:50hundreds of years ago could somehow lead to my constituent, a man with a

1:55:50 > 1:55:54four-year-old child who he has hardly seen, facing 12 years in

1:55:54 > 1:56:00prison for what happened when he was with a group of young men, in 40

1:56:00 > 1:56:05seconds, how on earth can we move from that piece of medieval law to

1:56:05 > 1:56:08the present situation in which people are suffering? I would like

1:56:08 > 1:56:14to suggest the reason why something happened in this area of

1:56:14 > 1:56:17jurisprudence in the 1990s comes down to one word and it has already

1:56:17 > 1:56:23been mentioned by the member for Sutton Coldfield. I can forgive him

1:56:23 > 1:56:27for slightly destroying my stereotype of stern unbending

1:56:27 > 1:56:32conservatism because he has shown himself to be a humane, decent,

1:56:32 > 1:56:36informed man on this and I pay full tribute to him. He used the word

1:56:36 > 1:56:44going. In the 1990s, the assumption was groups of young people, black,

1:56:44 > 1:56:48again, they were a threat, somehow out to destroy society -- he used

1:56:48 > 1:57:03the word gang. I would like to think the senior petulance of the law very

1:57:03 > 1:57:07well versed in street culture, but I think on this particular occasion,

1:57:07 > 1:57:14people saw gangs as a threat and they somehow transposed groups to

1:57:14 > 1:57:21gangs -- the senior petulance. This meconium legislation was brought in

1:57:21 > 1:57:27to crush these people, to crush a threat that did not exist -- this

1:57:27 > 1:57:30draconian legislation. It is not a threat purely confined to one group

1:57:30 > 1:57:37of people. How can you have young people like Kenneth Alexander and

1:57:37 > 1:57:43Alex Henry, simply out with friends, facing this life ahead of them

1:57:43 > 1:57:47because of the law? There are few tasks more melancholy than visiting

1:57:47 > 1:57:54the constituent in prison. One of the frustrations of visiting the

1:57:54 > 1:57:58constituent in prison is the inability to actually assist, to do

1:57:58 > 1:58:02more than to sympathise and two in some way just try to show he is not

1:58:02 > 1:58:16forgotten.

1:58:16 > 1:58:19It will be inconvenient for the judicial system to review cases,

1:58:19 > 1:58:26some say. Dan writing it will be. I would take inconvenience for a while

1:58:26 > 1:58:33rather than people spending more time in prison than they need to.

1:58:33 > 1:58:37They have the right to call upon the judicial system to be inconvenient

1:58:37 > 1:58:43if necessary. When I first became involved in this case, when my

1:58:43 > 1:58:47constituent's sister, Alex's sister, contacted me, and I could scarcely

1:58:47 > 1:58:54believe. I know the family. He lives a couple of streets away from it, a

1:58:54 > 1:59:11Hanwell man. He soon became a neck side-mac -- dart-mac the Right

1:59:11 > 1:59:18Honourable member for Ashford Road in June 2014: In my view, the law on

1:59:18 > 1:59:22joint enterprise serves a useful purpose. By bringing people to

1:59:22 > 1:59:25justice when they have been involved in the commission of an offence. I

1:59:25 > 1:59:29do not share the view that the law penalises innocent bystanders are no

1:59:29 > 1:59:36longer serves up. It make a valid purpose. We have no plans to amend

1:59:36 > 1:59:41at the moment. I'm sorry, this law does not form a useful purpose. It

1:59:41 > 1:59:46penalises the wrong people, brings the law into disrepute, and punishes

1:59:46 > 1:59:49wholly disproportionately. It is destroying families, wrecking

1:59:49 > 1:59:54individual lives, and above all, it is disengaging a whole group of

1:59:54 > 1:59:58people from the legal process because when they see a system so

1:59:58 > 2:00:04wrong, how can they possibly have any confidence in that system? I

2:00:04 > 2:00:07have no argument today with the member for Ashford, but I think he

2:00:07 > 2:00:13was wrong then. I think that was probably a brief that came from

2:00:13 > 2:00:17someone wearing a wig. As far as I'm concerned, I think this law has to

2:00:17 > 2:00:23be changed and has to be amended. Of course, I give way.My honourable

2:00:23 > 2:00:31friend gives generously the benefit of the doubt. He was proven to be

2:00:31 > 2:00:36wrong and he was reading a brief because the Supreme Court said the

2:00:36 > 2:00:40courts were wrong.Absolutely, the court said the law had been

2:00:40 > 2:00:45interpreted incorrectly, but that's only half of it. Writing the wrong

2:00:45 > 2:00:51is what has to happen now. -- correcting the wrong. I give way.I

2:00:51 > 2:00:54am very grateful and he makes a passionate point about it, and I

2:00:54 > 2:01:00agree with him that correcting the wrong is important. Would he agree

2:01:00 > 2:01:03that there is a distinction between the concept of joint enterprise,

2:01:03 > 2:01:16which can in many cases be reasonable, but it is the extension

2:01:16 > 2:01:21of it to the activity of groups of young people who are one of them may

2:01:21 > 2:01:26commit violence and the suggestion that foresight can be equated with

2:01:26 > 2:01:30intent, which is taking that doctrine beyond the sensible

2:01:30 > 2:01:35application.I think he has indicated a way forward. He knows

2:01:35 > 2:01:42the case of Craig and Bentley. In that case, one of them was hanged.

2:01:42 > 2:01:49In joint enterprise. Is it not a salutary thought that if the present

2:01:49 > 2:01:52law on joint enterprise had been applied when we had the death

2:01:52 > 2:02:00penalty, 20 young men would have been hanged? If we are saying that

2:02:00 > 2:02:05everyone in our group is guilty, would they all have been hanged? The

2:02:05 > 2:02:08mere thought about it is so horrific, so disgusting, that it

2:02:08 > 2:02:12surely brings into sharp relief the insanity of this present

2:02:12 > 2:02:15legislation, and the idea that you can cast is great blanket of

2:02:15 > 2:02:21culpability over a whole group of people - this law is nonsensical,

2:02:21 > 2:02:28cruel, brutal, outdated, and it has to go. Amazingly, the first time we

2:02:28 > 2:02:32have debated this subject on the floor of this House. I hope that

2:02:32 > 2:02:37today will be the beginning of that process which leads not just people

2:02:37 > 2:02:41like Alex Henry actually seeing daylight again, and seeing his child

2:02:41 > 2:02:50and family, but all those other people. When I last saw Alex, he was

2:02:50 > 2:02:54keeping his head down, keeping his nose clean, working in the kitchen.

2:02:54 > 2:03:00He had kind words for the staff at HMP Whitemore. But the hope was

2:03:00 > 2:03:06going out of his eyes. You could actually see him looking at that

2:03:06 > 2:03:12long stretch ahead of him, and as the honourable gentleman mentioned

2:03:12 > 2:03:18earlier, this is a man who is actually on the autism spectrum. In

2:03:18 > 2:03:23his appeal, evidence was submitted on his behalf by none less than FSR

2:03:23 > 2:03:28Baron Cohen. You cannot get a higher authority than that. Was that

2:03:28 > 2:03:32opinion accepted? Clearly it wasn't because my constituent is still in

2:03:32 > 2:03:39prison. He is a young autistic man who, in 40 seconds of his life,

2:03:39 > 2:03:43didn't stop something happening. He didn't do anything wrong, he didn't

2:03:43 > 2:03:47stop it happening. Can it really be right that in this day and age, the

2:03:47 > 2:03:52law that we are all sworn to uphold, that we are part of us are of the

2:03:52 > 2:03:56establishment of this country, is having that effect and that impact

2:03:56 > 2:04:00on people, disproportionately on young black men? Disproportionately

2:04:00 > 2:04:06on the innocent. Mr Deputy Speaker, I profoundly hope that this, today,

2:04:06 > 2:04:09is one of those occasions when something really good comes from

2:04:09 > 2:04:14this place, where we put down a marker to say that, yes,, we thank

2:04:14 > 2:04:19the support group for all their work, but even without them, in our

2:04:19 > 2:04:24own heart of hearts, in our own analysis, we realise that this

2:04:24 > 2:04:30stinks. This is wrong. This is dangerously, destructively,

2:04:30 > 2:04:35corrosive me wrong. We have to do something about it. Let today be the

2:04:35 > 2:04:39day that we consign the present interpretation of joint enterprise

2:04:39 > 2:04:49to the dustbin of history, take the law back into repute, and hopefully

2:04:49 > 2:04:52make Kenneth Alexander and Alex Henry take their rightful places in

2:04:52 > 2:04:56society, where we want them to be, may they be here in the House of

2:04:56 > 2:05:00Commons, in the gallery or whatever, rather than behind bars at the

2:05:00 > 2:05:04nation's expense. We cannot go on like this. Thank you.It is a

2:05:04 > 2:05:10pleasure to see you back in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and also a

2:05:10 > 2:05:15pleasure to follow the honourable member for Ealing North. A couple of

2:05:15 > 2:05:23points he raises about the local context, 40 seconds going to 12

2:05:23 > 2:05:31years, and the mention of a more ancient practice involving due

2:05:31 > 2:05:34loving. I would like to think the member for Manchester Central for

2:05:34 > 2:05:37bringing this important debate to the House. Our justice system needs

2:05:37 > 2:05:45to recognise the context in which much crime happens. There is a

2:05:45 > 2:05:49social context. There is more than just an individual engaging with and

2:05:49 > 2:05:55committing crime. Friends and family have a huge impact, huge influence

2:05:55 > 2:06:00on people's lives and what they do. The moral context and framework in

2:06:00 > 2:06:05which those people act. If an individual gets in with the wrong

2:06:05 > 2:06:12crowd, perhaps again, perhaps a mob, and those people encourage, force,

2:06:12 > 2:06:19direct, perhaps egg on people to commit crimes, the Justice system

2:06:19 > 2:06:23has to take account of their actions and there has to be that justice.

2:06:23 > 2:06:28This is what friends and families of the victims, so often murdered,

2:06:28 > 2:06:37would want and expect. I would just like to support the points the

2:06:37 > 2:06:42honourable lady made about proportionality, improving that

2:06:42 > 2:06:48sense. The gathering and presentation of accurate data is

2:06:48 > 2:06:52important. It is important to have good data to base these decisions on

2:06:52 > 2:06:57in the future. And bringing forward the CPS review. In conclusion, I'm

2:06:57 > 2:07:03not a lawyer and I don't want to keep you for too long, I would just

2:07:03 > 2:07:08recognise that following the Supreme Court ruling of February 2016, the

2:07:08 > 2:07:12CPS consulted widely on new legal guidance for prosecutors in cases of

2:07:12 > 2:07:19secondary liability, and I would hope that the Minister agrees that

2:07:19 > 2:07:22honourable members and their constituents would be best served by

2:07:22 > 2:07:33waiting for that guidance to be issued.David Lammy.Can I

2:07:33 > 2:07:38congratulate my honourable friend, the member for Manchester Central,

2:07:38 > 2:07:43in bringing this debate, and in the way she has gone about representing

2:07:43 > 2:07:48her constituents, many of whom I met a few weeks ago, who were caught up

2:07:48 > 2:07:53in this terrible nightmare. And also the Right Honourable member for

2:07:53 > 2:07:58Sutton Coldfield, whom I know is championing and taking up many of

2:07:58 > 2:08:05these issues consistently over the last few years in this House. The

2:08:05 > 2:08:08doctrine of common purpose, of joint enterprise, is a common-law

2:08:08 > 2:08:13doctrine, very much derived from judicial decisions, not legislation

2:08:13 > 2:08:21passed by Parliament. As has been said, it is now time for Parliament

2:08:21 > 2:08:27to reflect hard on where we have arrived at, and hard on the fact

2:08:27 > 2:08:34that the nature of this debate is essentially about juveniles, young

2:08:34 > 2:08:41people, as young as 14, who are looking at significant stretches of

2:08:41 > 2:08:48their lives behind bars. This debate is about what we have come to

2:08:48 > 2:08:56describe as gangs. We don't use gangs, Mr Deputy Speaker, when we're

2:08:56 > 2:09:00talking about the Bullington club. We do use gangs when we're talking

2:09:00 > 2:09:08about black youth in constituencies like mine, all right youth in

2:09:08 > 2:09:18constituencies like, say, Salford is in the north-west of England. And it

2:09:18 > 2:09:22is for that reason that it is so important that we look hard on a

2:09:22 > 2:09:28doctrine that stretches back to 1846, when two cart drivers engaged

2:09:28 > 2:09:34in a race that killed a pedestrian. Throughout the 20th century, further

2:09:34 > 2:09:39court judgments clarified the joint enterprise doctrine in the case of

2:09:39 > 2:09:44murder, even if there is no plan to murder and one party kills while

2:09:44 > 2:09:49carrying out the plan to do something else, for example,

2:09:49 > 2:09:53probably, the other participants can still be found guilty. Mr Speaker,

2:09:53 > 2:10:00the use of this doctrine has been criticised by academics, by legal

2:10:00 > 2:10:04practitioners, by the House of Commons select committee, and I want

2:10:04 > 2:10:09to associate myself with all those remarks, and the fantastic work of

2:10:09 > 2:10:17the support group, particularly over the last two years. I'm very

2:10:17 > 2:10:24concerned, Mr Speaker, that following my review, it is important

2:10:24 > 2:10:30that we recognise in this country that in black and particularly

2:10:30 > 2:10:36Muslim communities, there is tremendous concern at the face of

2:10:36 > 2:10:43our judiciary. The judiciary does not appear to be independent to

2:10:43 > 2:10:48those communities. Justice in those communities is not perceived to be

2:10:48 > 2:10:52blind. It is why I was so disappointed, Mr Deputy Speaker,

2:10:52 > 2:10:58that when I proposed a target in my review which I did for the

2:10:58 > 2:11:05Government, and it is not prescriptive, merely a goal. It was

2:11:05 > 2:11:10so roundly rejected by our senior judiciary and by the Government. I

2:11:10 > 2:11:13am also concerned that the independence that our judiciary say

2:11:13 > 2:11:18they have, and quite rightly have in our democracy, means that they are

2:11:18 > 2:11:22hugely detached from the communities that we're talking about today. They

2:11:22 > 2:11:26don't have to defend their actions in Tottenham Town Hall or Manchester

2:11:26 > 2:11:31City Hall. They are never present in those communities. They don't have

2:11:31 > 2:11:36the kind of surgeries that we do. And it's really important that they

2:11:36 > 2:11:40reflect hard, that within that common law tradition, there has been

2:11:40 > 2:11:45progress in other jurisdictions - Canada, Australia, New Zealand

2:11:45 > 2:11:50cinema in terms of proximity and diversity in relation to the

2:11:50 > 2:12:02judiciary, but in this country, we appear to be stuck.

2:12:03 > 2:12:16-- New Zealand - in terms of proximity... Joint enterprise has

2:12:16 > 2:12:22long been justified on the basis that it sends a wider social message

2:12:22 > 2:12:28by Government messages of both Conservative and Labour stripes. I

2:12:28 > 2:12:34won't quote from the former Secretary of State, who was Justice

2:12:34 > 2:12:37Secretary in 2011. I think honourable members will recognise

2:12:37 > 2:12:40that I don't really need to. They can understand what his views would

2:12:40 > 2:12:46be, but Lord Faulkner, in 2010, said a joint enterprise, the message the

2:12:46 > 2:12:49lowest sending out is that we are very willing to see people convicted

2:12:49 > 2:12:55of a part of gang violence, and that violence ends in somebody's death.