Sir Jeremy Wright
MP for Kenilworth and Southam · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I applaud my right hon. Friend’s passion and clarity on this issue. On the subject of democratic accountability, he knows that if, as the hon.”
“I welcome the intent that the Secretary of State has set out this afternoon, and the urgency with which she will require the relevant companies to act.”
“The Electoral Commission has made no formal assessment of this. It would be a matter for Parliament to introduce such legal protections. It is prescribed in law that poll cards and ballot papers must be provided in English or Welsh, but there are no other prescribed language requirements relating to election materials.”
“We can all cynically speculate about the reasons why this sudden about-turn has taken place this week, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who spoke from the Front Bench, said earlier, it is our job to scrutinise this legislation and to ensure that whatever we put in place does justice to the determination o…”
“In today’s version of the amendment paper, for the first time, that amendment has disappeared and been replaced not with the detailed compromise that Intelligence and Security Committee members, who have been engaged with this process, have been working towards, along with many others, but with Government amendment 157.”
“As the House would expect, we engaged with that process as diligently as we could, with no partisan politics, in an effort to make good law in the pursuit of greater state transparency while preserving our national security equities. As the hon.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,601 lines we hold for Sir Jeremy Wright, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 71 of 73.
“I recognise the great difficulty of diagnosing such conditions, the symptoms of which may be almost indistinguishable from those of other much less serious illnesses, and I cannot judge the general practitioners who failed to do so in the case of Thomas Archer. The fact remains, however, that a French doctor detected brain cancer where three British doctors did not, and, regardless of blame, we should investigate the reasons for that. I hope the Minister will be spurred by this case to think again about what enhancements to the education and awareness of, in particular, family doctors may be necessary. Secondly, on the importance of effective research, the Minister will know that the NHS spends less on brain cancers than on other cancers, leaving a gap to be filled by the voluntary sector. That, too, is a problem.”
“Ladyman), recognised that these matters had been little considered, and said "I hope that opportunities can be found further to debate them in coming months because they clearly need to be explored."— [ Official Report , 26 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 721–25.] I regret to say that there have been no such opportunities for childhood brain cancers to be debated until tonight. I do not seek to suggest that no progress has been made in the treatment of cancer generally, or that this debate should be used to condemn the NHS for failing Thomas Archer. I do, however, wish to mention two respects in which I believe that improvements may be made in terms of this highly distressing condition. First, there is the need to identify childhood brain tumours at an early stage more often.”
“Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), who, I am pleased to say, is in his place this evening. He secured an Adjournment debate on the subject on 26 April 2004. I am indebted to him for the speech that he made on that occasion, and also to other hon. Members whose contributions highlighted the many aspects of treatment and support that children with brain tumours, and their parents and carers, so desperately need. I do not intend to repeat the points made then, but I commend the report of the debate to all with an interest in the subject. As my hon. Friend said, "the issue of children with brain tumours is under-debated, under-reported and underfunded." It was, and it remains so. Replying to the debate, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr.”
“Karen and George have already managed to raise over £15,000 for the children's brain tumour research centre at Nottingham university. I pay tribute to them for that, and for what they have already done to raise awareness of this terrible condition. I also pay tribute to their friends and neighbours who did so much to make Thomas's last weeks special, even bringing forward Christmas when it became clear that he would not live to see it, putting up decorations early and arranging for artificial snow to cover the street where Thomas lived. Thomas was not, of course, the only child to die of a brain tumour last year. Approximately 100 do so every year, and such cancers are now the cause of more childhood deaths than any other disease. The House has debated this important issue before, to the credit of my hon.”
“A few days after arriving in France, Thomas was taken to see a French doctor who recommended further tests. Scans revealed a life-threatening medullablastoma in his brain, which was removed the following day. Thomas returned home, but although he appeared to be making a good recovery while subject to chemotherapy, his parents were told on 14 October that his cancer had spread throughout his brain and spinal cord. Thomas died just over two weeks later, some three months after the brain tumour had been diagnosed. Thomas's parents, George and Karen Archer, who are sitting in the Public Gallery, are determined that some good should come of their son's death, and it is due primarily to their courage and determination that I sought this debate.”
“Thomas Archer died in his father's arms on 30 October 2005. Thomas, who lived a few streets away from me in Rugby, was a little over two years old, and died of a brain tumour. In July last year, Thomas became ill and displayed several symptoms that caused his parents concern, including substantial loss of balance. Twice during that month they took him to their local general practitioner's surgery, and twice an ear infection was diagnosed. Antibiotics were prescribed, but Thomas did not get better. Just before the family left for a holiday in France, Thomas was taken to an out-of-hours GP's surgery because his parents were still worried. Again, they were told that there was nothing to worry about. By that point three doctors had diagnosed mild illness, and all three were wrong.”
“I would congratulate the Government if they took a profoundly sensible step, which would have a long-term impact on the way in which those who migrate to our country are assimilated, and help to welcome them as they should be welcomed. The Government should develop a system whereby those who become citizens of this country undergo a ceremony that formally recognises that. It is right to welcome those who become immigrants to this country properly. There should be formal recognition of those who commit to this country and become a citizen of it or an immigrant to it. They should be told that they are welcome and that we hope that they contribute not only to the economic life of our country but in many other ways.”
“If we say to economic immigrants, "You are welcome in this country if you have something to contribute to our economy," we would also be right to say, "You have the obligation to contribute in other ways, too, if you stay in this country in the long term. You are obliged to participate in our life as a nation and comply with our laws." A crucial point, which the system recognises but the Minister did not mention specifically, is expecting people who come to participate in the life of the country to learn the language. It is right to include language ability in the assessment criteria. We, as a nation, should offer those who come to live here opportunities to learn our language so that they can participate fully. That must be our objective.”
“It can also inform the way in which we engage with recent immigrants once they have gone through the process that the system defines and we know who can come here to work, who will stay for the long term and who for the shorter term, and in what way they will contribute economically to this country. Once we have established the principle whereby we allow people to migrate economically into this country because they have something to contribute, which is perfectly sensible, we can easily apply it to everything else that immigrants do in this country. Immigrants contribute not only to our economic life but to our arts, drama and music, and, as the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) eloquently pointed out, to our culinary life. It is vital that we regard all those aspects in the round.”
“There should be no check on what we say based on a fear that we may have of being labelled in a certain way. Whatever the Minister may have said at the outset, there is very little dispute between Members on either side of the House about the fact that it is clearly true that not everybody who wishes to come to live and work in this country can be accommodated here. The Government have therefore sensibly conceded that there must be a mechanism whereby we decide which of those aspirant immigrants can come here and which cannot. The points-based system has a great deal to commend it, as is clear from the fact that Members on both sides of the House have spoken in favour of the general principles that underpin it. In effect, it assesses potential immigrants on the basis of what they have to offer this country economically.”
“Nevertheless, it is right to recognise the other effects that immigration has and to say very clearly that we should not regard immigrants who come to this country for economic purposes merely as a transitory work force who are here only to satisfy our economic needs—because they can do much more, and should be encouraged to do so. I am referring primarily to the tiers in the system that may lead to economic migrants remaining in this country in the long term, or permanently, and subsequently becoming fully fledged citizens of this country. That is an exceptionally worthwhile progression, and surely something from which we, as well as they, can benefit. Whenever we debate immigration we should face up to the hard truths. Perhaps in this House above all, those of us who feel strongly on this subject should be able to say what we think.”
“I preface my remarks by saying that whenever this House debates immigration, it is important that we use clear and precise language. We must also set our remarks in the proper context. I therefore want to make it perfectly clear that I am not merely tolerant of immigration into this country but positively in favour of it. As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, immigration contributes not only to our economic life but, far more broadly, to our cultural, political and social life. Perhaps this debate has been far too narrowly focused on economics, although I fully understand that that is because it is primarily about a system for managing economic migration.”
“Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) expressed about whether the detail of the system will work as it should, I want to make it clear that I support what lies behind the scheme, not only because it is a way of managing economic migration but because it is a factor in a more wide-ranging system, which we can use to ensure that immigration works for the benefit of those who already live here and those who, quite properly, wish to do so.”
“I follow the Minister's argument, but there is more advantage in the proposals than simply the ability to manage a system of economic migration. They also constitute an opportunity to establish clearly from the outset that people who come to this country can make a contribution, but that there are also expectations of them. The system's ability to admit those who can make a contribution benefits not only the economy but many other aspects of life. I understand the Minister's points, but the debate could be allowed to go a little wider, and that is what I have tried to do in my contribution. However, with the reservations that my hon.”
“Does the Minister accept that there are two problems with the warm front scheme, which prevent it from helping more people in more ways? The first is that the warm front grant is often used to pay for insulation, which should be provided free of charge by energy suppliers under the energy efficiency commitment scheme. The second is that warm front contractors often charge substantially more than other local contractors would—in some cases, more than £1,000 more. Will he look into those two problems and resolve them?”
“I understand the points that the Home Secretary makes about standardising powers for police community support officers. However, in Warwickshire, PCSOs are permitted to travel only by public transport, which significantly limits their effectiveness. Will he be cautious about extending their powers without extending the necessary training and equipment? He will understand that my constituents welcome PCSOs as an addition, but not as a replacement for full police officers.”
“On the subject of NICE, my hon. Friend will be aware of the arguments that relate to Alzheimer's drugs. I ask him to consider whether those arguments should apply also to cancer drugs. Should not NICE consider the economic impact on social services as much as on health services when considering the economic viability of cancer drugs?”
“4. How many of those convicted of a criminal offence in the last year for which figures are available were employed within the emergency services at the time of their offence. [50393]”
“I thank the Minister for that answer, but may I invite him to look at the issue from a slightly different angle? He will know that post-traumatic stress disorder is increasingly being recognised in the emergency services generally and in the police force particularly and that, in some cases, it can lead to domestic violence, alcoholism and, through that, to other offences. Will he look into what his Department is doing to ensure that those who have post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly in the police force, are looked after and supported to ensure that the consequences of that condition are minimised wherever possible?”
“Does the Minister agree that students will not reach the point at which they can submit a sickness certificate if they do not reach their final year? Does he share the concern of academics reported in the media this morning that first-year undergraduates do not have the necessary standards of literacy and numeracy? Bearing in mind that they have undergone their secondary education exclusively under a Labour Government, what has gone wrong with their education?”
“All Members will rightly express outrage when members of the armed services and the emergency services who have suffered serious physical injury do not receive the care to which we and they believe that they are entitled. It is surely right that those who suffer mental injury as a result of the same activities on our behalf should receive similar consideration.”
“I invite the Minister and all those involved in drafting the mental health Bill to consider what can be done to weight the services available to those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder in favour of therapy and access to counselling, either in person or by telephone, in order to ensure that people have early access to support, which they, and we, will find valuable. The firefighter to whom I referred calculated the costs to the taxpayer of his six years' absence from work. He has recently felt able to return to work, and has done so, as a result of counselling provided by Assist which cost £1,000. The Government could profitably consider such approaches to looking after those who have served us so well and ensure that they receive the care and support to which they are fully entitled.”
“I hope that the Minister accepts that although one option for those individuals when their illness becomes very serious is in-patient care—I am sorry to say that in-patient facilities for military personnel have closed progressively over the past few years, both at Catterick and Ty Gwyn in north Wales—other options include counselling and therapy, which should be available through the NHS but so rarely are. As I understand it, there are only 14 locations where counselling can be given to those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. The gap must be bridged by the voluntary sector. In fact, it is bridged very successfully by such groups as Assist, in my constituency, which does a fantastic job in trauma management.”
“I recently met an experienced firefighter who, as a result of a collision with a car in which the driver of the other vehicle was killed—an incident that was not the firefighter's fault—suffered a series of flashbacks leading to a more serious breakdown, after which he spent six years away from work. That cost the taxpayer a total of £118,000 in pension, incapacity benefit and other benefits. On that basis it must be right that in framing their Mental Health Bill, the Government give clear and full consideration to the ways in which we can assist those individuals and ensure early intervention, so that they can receive the care and treatment that they need as soon as it can be given to them.”
“Those who serve this country bravely, and sometimes at great cost to themselves not only physically but mentally, suffer from anything ranging from flashbacks to serious mental breakdowns, and do so often in what might be an unsympathetic environment. There is no doubt that post-traumatic stress disorder, like other mental illnesses, wrecks lives—not just the lives of those who suffer from it but those of their families and friends. It often leads to alcoholism, violence, homelessness and family breakdown, and all those problems need addressing in the context of the illness that the person is suffering from. The illness is costly not only in human terms but in financial terms.”
“People have always suffered from it, but it has only relatively recently been recognised—from first world war shell-shock to the illness that is diagnosed today. Post-traumatic stress disorder can affect us all. Whether we are holidaymakers or commuters, we are potential victims of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of natural disasters of almost biblical proportions or terrorist atrocities on our daily commute to or from work. It particularly affects—this is the group of people to whom I particularly want to draw the attention of the House—those who feel that they ought to be most able to deal with it, and are therefore least likely to seek help. I refer to those in the armed services and the emergency services.”
“I agree with comments by Members on both sides of the House that the primary difficulty with the mental health debate is that various types of mental illnesses are minimised and often ignored. Within that broad category of mental illnesses, there are some that are disregarded even more than others. I want to focus my remarks in the brief time available on one of those: post-traumatic stress disorder. Post-traumatic stress disorder is a mental illness that is often dismissed, not simply by the rest of us but by those who suffer from it. It therefore presents its own specific difficulties in terms of the work that the Government and the NHS must do to support those who suffer from it.”
“Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that is proved by the fact that the Government are inflexible when it comes to crossing regional boundaries? If they were not pursuing a regional agenda, would they not be more flexible in that regard?”
“The Minister will know that her Department has asked some very perceptive questions along the lines of the remarks by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). What are the Government doing to ensure that NICE gives satisfactory responses to those questions?”
“I am sure that the Minister agrees that making an ASBO is of no value if it is not enforced. What will the Government do to reduce the paperwork burden on the police so that they have the time and opportunity to enforce the orders that the courts make?”
“Is there not a third dimension? I am thinking of the effect of a proper registration system that would command respect among the population generally, and particularly among those who vote by post or feel inclined to do so. It would help if we had a system of registration for postal voting that made those who might vote by post feel more confident that their votes would be counted properly. That would increase turnout and deal with registration.”
“The proposals that give us the most safe, reliable and complete register, from whichever side of the House they come, are the ones that should command the support of the whole House. The objections by Labour Members that the national insurance number would do even greater damage to the level of registration do not hold water. It is improbable that the reason people do not register now is because of the obligations on them, by which I mean the obligation to give their name, signature or, in the future, national insurance number. The reasons for not registering are far more fundamental than that. I agree, as I am sure does pretty much every hon. Member, that something serious has to be done to address that level of disengagement, but adding the requirement to supply a signature or a national insurance number would not damage registration.”
“Although we are talking about registration, the integrity of the register and the voting system as a whole has a substantial effect on whether those people cast their vote. They do not have a choice between voting by post or voting in person at the ballot box. Their choice is between voting by post or not voting at all. If the House attempts to increase registration, which I fully accept is a desirable goal, but, in the course of doing so, damages turnout, that will be a strange and undesirable outcome. The House has an obligation, and we in this debate have an obligation, to find a way in which we can make a register as safe, reliable and complete as it can possibly be.”
“I will happily support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). Indeed, I would much rather support the proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that we use national insurance numbers to ensure that the register has integrity. I am happy to do either or both of those things because I do not want, and I hope that no other hon. Member would want, to have the same experience that I, and I am sure many others, had during the last general election campaign of the unwillingness of those who had applied for postal votes to use them because they had insufficient faith that the postal vote would not be interfered with.”
“My hon. Friend has encapsulated the issue perfectly. We want to achieve the maximum registration of people who are entitled to vote. We do not simply want to increase the number—we want to ensure that people who are entitled to vote have the opportunity and are encouraged to do so. People who should not have the opportunity to vote, because they are not so entitled, should not be on the register in the first place. It is important to look at the circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland and the reasons why turnout was not as great as it had been previously. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome expressed clear support for a system using national insurance numbers, as proposed by the Opposition.”
“I accept what the hon. Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) said. I was present at that hearing, and the Electoral Commission has indeed come to the conclusion that national insurance numbers are not the best way forward. I disagree. As I have said, it is vital that everyone who is on the register and who is entitled to vote should have absolute confidence that everyone with whom they share the register is entitled to be on it and that the system has integrity. We should therefore seek to make the system as safe as possible.”
“I am giving way, first, to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and then to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).”
“I agree, as the judges say, and I have nothing to add. It is entirely felicitous that I should be able to rise to make a speech and not have to do so.”
“It is highly likely that if the Government were to roll out a pilot scheme, followed potentially by a national roll-out, that would not occur before the next general election. I come back to the point with which I began. The House has an obligation to all those who require the register to have integrity to give them confidence to use the electoral system. We owe it to them to provide for improvements to the system to be made soon.”
“The hon. Gentleman must decide whether people would not remain on the register if they were invited to provide their national insurance number. That is profoundly unlikely. I agree entirely that there are serious problems in this country concerning people who are not on the register but should be. If their national insurance number were an additional requirement, I do not think that that would put them off. There are far more fundamental problems that we must address, but the national insurance number is not one of them. Finally, I want to touch on one other point—pilot schemes, rather than a national roll-out scheme. I put this as charitably as I can: we all know that Government timetables tend to slip from what they hope to achieve.”
“I agree with the hon. Lady that that is a problem, as I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd, but two wrongs do not make a right. The fact that there are insufficient numbers of people on the register is one problem. There is a problem—this is where I disagree with her—of people on the register who should not be there, and there is certainly a problem of perception among those who are properly on the register—”
“No, I will not give way again. I am about to conclude. There is a problem that people who perceive a great deal of fraud in the voting system—I am thinking particularly of those who use the postal voting system—are discouraged from voting because they do not feel that the system has integrity. The House has a responsibility to deal with that. On national roll-outs and pilot programmes, that is a national problem and requires a national solution. It is also an urgent problem and requires an urgent solution. The solutions proposed by the Government in the Bill unamended do neither of those things.”
“Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no real reason why Warwickshire police force—my local police force—should not be permitted to amalgamate, if that is the appropriate solution for it, with counties such as Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, except that they cross regional government boundaries and that doing so does not fit in with the Government's regional government agenda?”
“The Minister has expressed her concern for the junior Bar, which I share. Does she agree that one of the reasons for the industrial action is that members of the junior Bar in particular have been asked to wait and wait for an indication of what their financial future will be? Had the Government also waited for the Carter review before imposing cuts on fees paid to the junior Bar, that industrial action might have been averted.”
“The Minister has made it perfectly clear that the Government's intention is to reduce the demands on the criminal legal aid budget, but I am sure that she will accept that delay in the criminal justice system is a problem. What measures will the Government take to ensure that means-testing, and all that goes with it, does not delay the bringing to court of criminal cases?”
“I certainly am. The hon. and learned Lady is right to say that I have an interest in these matters. I practise, as she did, at the criminal Bar. I understand that plenty of people might apply to chambers such as hers, to be at the criminal Bar. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, the issue is how many people are going to be able to afford to practise at the criminal Bar, when there are many more lucrative options elsewhere in the legal profession. Does not the hon. and learned Lady agree that we should be attracting the brightest and best to criminal law, rather than allowing them to go elsewhere?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only would a criminal defence service be not necessarily better for the defendant, but—on the evidence we have so far—it would be no cheaper either?”
“I hope that the Minister will take my points on board and bear them in mind when she thinks about other matters that the Government might wish to address when considering the criminal justice system as a whole.”
“Although I do not object to the substance of the Bill, it fails to address the concerns that I have cited. I hope that the Minister will carefully examine not only what the Bill covers, but what it does not cover. As the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, when we deal with criminal defendants, we are often dealing with vulnerable individuals in their most vulnerable moments. It is important that they receive the assistance that they need so that they are represented properly. If they become inclined to defend and represent themselves, as I suspect that they will in some cases, it will not enhance the nature of British justice—quite the reverse.”
“The problem that arises when people represent themselves is not only monetary. It is of course right that such people, as non-trained lawyers, might not be able to get to the heart of the matter as quickly as a legal representative could. Cross-examination also goes on longer. However, in a substantial number of cases, it is profoundly undesirable that those who represent themselves should be permitted to cross-examine witnesses. One can think of several examples of such cases, including neighbour disputes and, worse yet, cases involving a child as a victim or a witness. If prosecutions are conducted in such a way that defendants represent themselves and thus cross-examine witnesses, the process not only takes longer, but detracts from the nature of justice and affects the tone of the case.”