Last month, I wrote in my Thame Gazette article about my programme of 'Conversations in the street'. That is where I simply turn up and conduct what amount to street surgeries. In my article, I pointed out one fact from the surgeries was that "Brexit does not appear to come very high" on the list of things people want to raise with me. It seemed to set the cat amongst the pigeons, especially on social media. But what did those criticising this fact do? They decided to attack my work in conducting 'Conversations in the street'; attacking the very notion that an MP talks to his constituents on his own!
This week I saw an opinion poll conducted over 21-23 September by ORB International, a respected firm. It supported the view relayed to me by constituents in my conversations. First, one of the main results of the poll confirms that a massive 82% are fed up with both some pro-Brexit and some pro-Remain politicians who claim they speak for everyone who voted in the referendum. It is not just the politicians in whom many people have lost faith, either. They have also lost faith in the detail of what we are trying to achieve and simply want us to get on with delivering Brexit. That accounts for 52% of those polled.
In addition, 62% of those polled also took the view that they were not bamboozled by the complexity of the issues at the time of the Referendum or that the issues were too complicated. In other words, they believed they answered the right question and got the answer right.
But what does the Brexit look like that people appear to have voted for? First, it does not principally consist of a no-deal Brexit, particularly if those aged 18-24 are looked at on their own. The overall percentage opposing a no-deal solution was 48% with a low percentage of 30% for those who support no-deal. Moreover, it is also interesting to see what many of us have been saying for a long while now come through in the figures for the nature of the negotiations. 82% agree that the solution lies in making concessions on both sides – or in other words in one or more compromises. 71% agreed that the Government should prioritise negotiating an acceptable settlement including 62% of those who voted for Brexit.
I am not one to put undue trust in opinion polls but neither is this a case of simply sitting on the fence. We have a decision to implement; we are committed to leaving the EU in March of next year. Personally I also believe we need a negotiated settlement and that the Government needs the time and space to still try to achieve that. That is what this poll sensibly makes clear. This is neither the time for rushing around crying betrayal or for trying to frustrate the decision of the referendum. The matter, as the polling showed, will be sorted by compromise and for that we need to ensure that we keep a cool head.
A Hornchurch youngster has spent his summer as an intern at the Mother of Parliaments, thanks to a pioneering scheme run by a local charity. Ben Huseyin, who is autistic, has spent two fortnight long spells in my Westminster office.
Ben's internship came as a result of efforts by the Sycamore Trust UK, a local charity that helps children and young people with autism. In 2017, the Trust launched their programme for assisting young adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder into work. Entitled SPACE (Supporting People with Autism into Continued Employment) and backed by the Glyn Hopkin charitable foundation, SPACE began the process of preparing young adults with autism for work. Candidates are required to complete a programme of several weekly modules, each relating to a specific activity, such as preparing a CV, or presenting themselves for interview.
As part of his work experience, SPACE was able to secure a place with the Conservative MP for Henley, and Ben's time has come to an end this week as parliament enters its summer recess.
I explained, "Ben has seen the full range of what an MP does. For example, he's seen me speak in debates in the main chamber and he's also been to Prime Minister's Questions. He's also been to a number of select committees as well as plenty of work in the office."
Although initially nervous, Ben has really enjoyed his spell working in Westminster and has gained some wonderful experience of life in Westminster. He said, "I have really enjoyed the work here. I was a bit nervous at first because I was worried it might be a bit above me, but it wasn't as difficult as I thought and I have been able to cope."
My office also ensured that Ben had some dealings with my constituents. I said, "every week, we read through the local papers and write to people in the constituency who have achieved something. Ben has been doing that research and drafting those letters."
Young people and adults with ASD have a constant battle trying to find work and at present, only 16% of autistic adults are in paid employment, which is a constant battle for the Sycamore Trust. The biggest challenge is finding jobs for a very capable group of people, as SPACE Project manager Nikki Murphy explained, "work experience and internships are great but these young people are capable of more. They are by nature very organised and polite and Ben is an example of that. He can travel anywhere, he is always on time and he is ready for work"
I echoed those remarks. I said, "it's been an enormous pleasure having Ben with us and I hope by having him here we've been able to show that it is perfectly possible to increase the number of people with ASD into employment."
Two appeal decisions in South Oxfordshire have confirmed the importance of Neighbourhood Plans.
The first of these was for a development of 95 houses on a site off Kennylands Road, Sonning Common. The Sonning Common Neighbourhood Development Plan (SCNDP) had allocated 26 houses for the site. The Inspector considered a number of factors in reaching his decision to reject the application but they came down to two points: (1) was the proposal to build on the site consistent with the SCNDP, and (2) would the proposal affect the character and appearance of the countryside.
This decision goes to the heart of what is good about Neighbourhood Plans and the efforts by the community not only to bring one into force but also to keep it up-to-date. In talking about the NDP, for example, the Inspector says that "It takes forward the shared vision of the community for the neighbourhood area....at its heart is the key issue of how many new homes should be built in the village, what kind of homes they should be and where they should be built." In other words the Sonning Common NDP has done the right thing for the right reasons and its wish to make a clear distinction between the surrounding AONB and the village is to be applauded. In common with many other NDPs the Sonning Common NDP provides for a substantial up-lift in housing numbers on the figures suggested by SODC. As the Inspector again said: "The strategy in the SCNDP, in my view, sets out a clear identification of where there is an expectation that development will go..." The Inspector also found that the site was an important landscape area and the development would conflict with the protection of what was an attractive landscape setting. Most importantly, the Inspector also clearly stated that he felt that guidance on what he should do was clear and that "where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood development plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted." I could not agree more with this statement and it is what I have been working to achieve.
Finally, the Inspector also made clear that the special arrangements I had helped bring in to tackle the situation where the District Council did not have a 5 year land supply and NDPs would need to rely on a 3 year land supply figure were to be followed.
The second case relates to Benson where I had successfully asked for a planning application for 180 houses to the south of Watlington Road to be called-in to be decided by the Secretary of State because I did not believe that it was right to decide this application when the Benson Neighbourhood Development Plan (BNDP) was so close to its definitive referendum. The Secretary of State has now decided not to allow the planning application to go ahead.
Of great importance in this case was the recognition that whatever SODC might be doing to undertake a review of all plans in respect of the EU habitats directive, the BNDP was still part of the development plan whether SODC chose to adopt the NDP or not. This was the very point I had confirmed with officials. Also crucially and this is worrying for SODC, its new 5 year housing supply figure may not be as strong as it claims although the Secretary of State considered the council can demonstrate something above 5 years. Just like at Sonning Common, the BNDP commits the village to a substantial amount of housing growth far in excess of the village's own requirements. Of crucial importance is the fact that the Secretary of State agrees that the proposal conflicts with the BNDP and should be given substantial weight. Again, using words similar to those used in the Sonning Common case, the Secretary of State concludes that "where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan that has been brought into force, planning permission should not normally be granted".
Both of these cases show how the Secretary of State and the Planning Inspectorate are supporting Neighbourhood Plans. Of crucial significance is the fact that where an NDP has been brought into force planning permission should not normally be granted which conflicts with it. That more than anything should give a great deal of comfort to those communities doing a Neighbourhood Plan.
One of the issues in the White Paper "The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union" that many people seem to have a problem with is the Common Rule Book with the EU. The fear is that we will simply accept whatever the EU says. I want to show why this is not the case. To do this I have taken the advice of the Attorney General who is chief legal adviser to the Crown. This is a complex area of international law which I will try to explain.
The Common Rule Book only applies to goods but is part of ensuring that there are no hard borders between Eire and Northern Ireland. A Common Rule Book does not apply to services. It only applies therefore to 20% of our economy.
First, the Common Rule Book will not be applied simply by accepting what the EU says it should. It will require a new treaty which we will need to negotiate, agree and approve through the normal Parliamentary means. This is completely different to the process which applies now to members of the EU and I find it difficult to see how this does not equate to taking back control of our own laws.
The power, for example, that the EU has simply to make laws for the UK would go and rules made by the EU would no longer have automatic effect in UK law. The suggestion that, under this agreement, "it is inevitable that the application of the rules in the UK and UK regulatory bodies would continue to be bound by the decisions of EU bodies in the same way as if the UK were still a member state", is, therefore, inaccurate.
Existing EU Treaties would simply no longer bind the UK, and so the direct effect and supremacy of EU law as we have known it would end. In the future, it would be for the UK to legislate for the Common Rule Book, within our own system.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) would have no jurisdiction over the Common Rule Book and it would not be possible for UK courts to refer matters to the ECJ for reference. Our courts would pay due regard to the case law of the ECJ to ensure consistent interpretation and application of the Common Rule Book, but they will not be bound to refer matters of principle to the ECJ as before.
Disputes would be heard by an independent arbitration panel which is something I have long promoted in law. A matter could only be referred to the ECJ by mutual consent but it could not resolve the dispute. The ECJ can only bind the EU on the interpretation of EU law, not the UK, and has to respect the principle that the court of one party cannot decide disputes between the two.
If we diverged from the Common Rule Book there would be no sense in which the EU could impose disproportionate measures for this divergence. That would mean that, if it were in the UK's national interest, we could choose to diverge from the rule book and incur only proportionate consequences.
I hope this makes the position clearer.
Some people have asked why I have rarely written an Issues Briefing on Brexit. There are so many aspects to it that it would be near impossible to produce this as one document and there are anyway many good factual (and independent) briefings produced by the House of Commons Library to which I have directed people on many occasions and again included a link below.
My own position on Brexit has not changed. I campaigned to remain in the EU; I voted to remain in the EU. However, in the result of the Referendum I was on the losing side of the argument. The task now is to get the best deal that we can for the country. What I am after is neither a so-called hard or soft Brexit but a fair Brexit.
THE RECENT DEBATES ON THE EU WITHDRAWAL BILL
In recent weeks I have received some emails on the debate on the Lords Amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill. I received emails from both sides asking me to take contrary action and essentially, what these emails were saying was "I am damned if I do and damned if I don't" take a particular view on Brexit. Yet, as the Speaker of the House of Commons made clear, all I can do is follow my conscience on these issues in the full knowledge that I am a representative and not a delegate.
The situation with any Bill is that the position in Parliament is a dynamic one and not a static one. Bills are not put forward on a take it or leave it basis. They are the subject of discussion, debate and most importantly compromise wherever possible. Ministers indicate future changes as well as accept or reject official amendments. The EU Withdrawal Bill is no different. It is not a black or white position and the refinement continues.
What we have been discussing is the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. We have not been taking a second bite at Article 50 and whether the UK should leave the EU. The decision to enact Article 50 which starts the withdrawal proceedings was passed in the House of Commons by 494 to 122 – an overwhelming majority. I share the view that the House of Lords has exceeded its constitutional role in putting forward so many amendments that go beyond the terms of this Bill.
Membership of the EEA, the Customs Union and the Single Market were all defeated as Lords Amendments. In none of these cases did I believe that they were compatible with the decision reached in the Referendum and did not sit well side by side with our exit from the EU. The issue of a meaningful vote has become a fractious one since some are accusing the Prime Minister of going back on an agreement reached with Conservative rebels, although it has now been admitted that no such agreement was in fact reached. Personally, I thought we already had a meaningful vote on this issue and were well placed to hold the Government to account. I will look at any future amendments put forward on this subject but I would not underestimate the constitutional implications of what it is trying to achieve. See the House of Commons Library Briefing on this. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/legislation/parliaments-right-to-a-meaningful-vote-amendments-to-the-eu-withdrawal-bill/
THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
There is an alternative to the EU already in place and that is the Council of Europe. It is the organisation which has kept the peace in Europe since the end of the Second World War. It is the institution which initiated the Convention on Human Rights which remains the principle treaty on the subject. It is the premier human rights organisation in Europe and looks after the European Court of Human Rights, which is not an EU body but in front of which we have a success rate of well over 90%. It has 47 member countries and was the inspiration in 1949 of the UK amongst others. The work of the Council of Europe already affects a large number of different departments within Government. Clearly, it affects the Foreign Office since it covers so many aspects of foreign policy including whether individual countries meet their Council of Europe obligations and whether democracy can be enhanced in Turkey.
It also covers the work of the Home Office particularly in relation to terrorism and security including the consequences of war in various countries and modern slavery. The Council provides the international framework for discussing issues related to security and terrorism and has produced the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism which we signed in 2005. This has included criticism by me of the Government of Belgium for not taking action in advance of the terrorist attack at Brussels airport. It covers cultural and related historic activities including football and sports governance. It covers a number of environmental considerations such as the effect of climate change on tidal lagoons and air quality. It covers the Treasury since we have discussed basic citizenship incomes. These are just some of the areas of British Government it touches. The Council of Europe has no legislative ability in itself and its recommendations are just that. Across much of mainland Europe there is a wish not to be on the wrong side of the Council of Europe. It does have the ability to share best practices and ensure that there is a maximum of co-ordination. It is however in the field of human rights that there is a particular focus for our post-Brexit involvement in Europe.
Most importantly, the Council also participates in essential work to increase democracy by monitoring elections. For example we will be participating in the monitoring of the Turkish General Election. It is also producing guidelines for the conduct of referenda. Above all, the Council offers all this in a way which enhances our sovereignty and shows our willingness to share in areas where we benefit from international co-operation. There are no statutory implications for the UK or on our ability to enhance the need for best practice and co-operation.
REVISITING THE REFERENDUM
Some of the emails I received have unashamedly asked me to block or frustrate Brexit. I simply will not do this. To do so would fly in the face of a referendum result which was clear and which both the Conservative and Labour Parties agreed in their manifestos to carry through to fruition. To go back on this would be a betrayal of a democratic decision and I do not believe that that would be in the country's interests.
So it is unhelpful to try to argue that I should vote a certain way in order 'to satisfy the expressed wish of my constituents in the referendum.' The referendum was a national vote and not one based on constituencies where the figures are estimated figures based on a statistical model. The vote was not counted on a constituency basis.
A number of emails have tried to say that this decision was obtained on the basis of lies by the Leave campaign alone without a reference to the lies of the Remain campaign in what was widely described as Project Fear. This also fails to acknowledge that these lies continue on both sides of the argument today; witness the heavy distortions of what MPs have said by Remain leaflets. It fails too to acknowledge that the odour of sanctity surrounding the Liberal-Democrats is now well and truly compromised. It was the Liberal Democrat Party which was fined £17,000 by the Electoral Commission after the party breached campaign finance rules relating to the EU Referendum. The Party failed to submit a complete and accurate spending return. As The Daily Telegraph pointed out the fine is only slightly shy of the £20,000 maximum which can be levied. In addition, the Open Britain campaign was also fined for an incorrect spending return linked to the Referendum. Similar fining of the Leave campaign has already been documented.
A PARTY POLITICAL ISSUE?
Those who ask me to dispense with party interests in the national interest ignore the fact that what is in the national interest is itself a party political issue and that different parties take different views. And yet, as I have already mentioned, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party are united in respecting the result of the Referendum. What we are seeing now is less about Party politics and more about Leave or Remain with underlying political advantage being grabbed wherever it can.
I understand the passion felt by those who want to remain in the EU. As I have said, this is the view that I took as well during the Referendum Campaign - although I fully admit that the EU requires fundamental reform which we are unlikely now to see. But we have to admit that we lost the vote. It is no use saying that opinion polls show people are changing their minds. Surely, the last General Elections have taught us that opinion polls are massively unreliable and are not an equivalent to a referendum or a general election. Moreover, the polls do not show a clear and massive swing for the Remain campaign anyway.
People try to tell me that Theresa May is heading for the hardest Brexit of all, but with no explanation of what this derogatory term means and in the face of an acknowledgement from her that there should be a customs arrangement with the EU. Other emails have spoken of negotiations being gridlocked. I simply cannot see that in the state of our negotiations, or at least I cannot see anything unusual about the state of the negotiations with the EU that is at all different from the negotiations I conducted in the private sector. The only thing that is different is a somewhat malign interest from the press and media. On the subject of a second referendum, frankly I do not like the idea. I do not believe it will help the situation by making a second referendum less divisive. We are going to see the same arguments raised again. We are going to see the same level of acrimony; the same willingness to use the law at every opportunity; and the same request for whoever loses to take their views into account. I am conscious of the statement made by the Archbishop of Canterbury who said that a second referendum on the final Brexit deal would be "unwise" and "not democratic".
THE BREXIT HUB
For those who would like to get non-partisan briefings on Brexit the House of Commons Library has set up a section on its website. This link takes you to the opening page https://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/eu-referendum/
Over the past few years I have been approached by a number of people with environmental concerns on the subject of aircraft noise over Henley and the surrounding area. To this has now been added similar concerns to do with the new third runway at Heathrow. During this period I have organised two meetings in Henley with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), NATS and Heathrow for people to be able to put their questions directly to those actively involved in dealing with these issues. I have also visited the air traffic control centre on the south coast to see for myself how this is handled. The fact remains that aircraft have to land into the wind which means that, when the wind is an easterly, planes turn over Henley to line up to land at Heathrow. Although the predominant wind is from the West there have been significant periods when the wind has come from the east. About 70% of the time planes work on westerly operations which is less noticeable in our area. The increase of late in the number of days of flying on easterly operations can be found at https://www.heathrow.com/noise/heathrow-operations/wind-direction
The second important point to bear in mind is, as has been pointed out to me, that many people in the constituency, and particularly in Henley, make their living from aviation either by flying as air crew, by travelling themselves or by working in support functions in and around the airport. There is a balance to be struck.
In addition to the meetings I organised, I have raised the issue with Ministers, have asked questions in the House and also spoken in debates on the subject. The bottom line is that the CAA and NATS have begun work on a comprehensive review of how we use airspace around airports. Better use of airspace, better use of new technology including quieter and more environmentally efficient planes, and changes to the height at which aircraft are brought in to land will all have a major impact on the level of noise over the constituency and could provide considerably more respite. To this mix has been added a third runway at Heathrow.
The combination of these two projects holds out the real possibility that the system of stacking aircraft around London can virtually be abolished. This has enormous potential for decreasing pollution and making communities on the flight paths much quieter. That is why I was keen to ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the relation between these projects was during the Statement on the third runway.
In his Statement to the House of Commons, the Secretary of State said specifically that the new runway cannot go ahead without demonstrating that it can follow air quality guidelines. He also pointed out the strong mitigations which would exist and the way that noise pollution would be tackled which is comparable with some of the most generous packages in the world. He also pointed out the intention to deliver on a six and a half hour ban on night flights. The fact is that new planes are cleaner, greener and quieter than the ones they are replacing. All this is in the context of a significant community engagement programme.
It is clear what we should be doing. We should first aim to participate in the airspace review to ensure that our needs are fully taken into account. Second, we also need to be heard as the project for the new runway develops to ensure that mitigation factors affect Henley in a positive way. Both of these are processes I have already started including within the House of Commons by asking questions of the Secretary of State himself. Thirdly, we need to ensure that the list of communities covered by the community engagement programme includes us.
I was pleased that so many people attended the open meeting in Sonning Common on Friday. The prime purpose was to find out what was on your minds. Some 70 of you came along on the Friday night and we had a very friendly discussion on a number of issues from planning to roads, housing to policing, and the environment to the NHS. There were a couple of points I said I would take away and feedback your concerns. I thought it helpful, though, to provide a few comments in the meantime on three of the biggest.
As I said at the meeting, I meet with the Area Commander from time to time to discuss the workload of the police and how they are tackling crime. We have seen a change in the nature of crime within the area and we have seen the prevalence of rural crime which, with the help of farmers, is being tackled. That still leaves the problems identified at the meeting of break-ins to cars and to vans. It is worth noting that crimes traditionally measured by the Independent Crime Survey for England and Wales are actually down by over a third since June 2010. I was really pleased that overall police spending has been protected in real terms until 2019/20, once local income is taken into account, which will enable the police to continue to adapt. This works out as an increase of £900 million cash by 2019-20. I welcome the fact that Police and Crime Commissioners are being given the flexibility to increase their funding by up to £270 million in 2018/19 by increasing the Council Tax precept by up to £1 a month for a typical householder without the need to call a local referendum. It is clear the police are seeing more complex crime, and here close to Oxford we have seen terrible crimes against children. All of this means that the police need to adapt.
I am fully committed to supporting the social rented sector. But here in this constituency there appears to be more of a need for affordable market housing. I agree that developers are simply not rising to the challenge on this. The issue of the socially rented sector was raised at a meeting inThame. We agreed that it was a good idea to come up with figures for the social rented housing need and I urge Sonning Common to do the same. Since 2010 over 357,000 affordable homes have been delivered across the country, including more than 249,000 for rent. I was pleased to see the announcement of an extra £2 billion in funding for the 2016-2021 Affordable Homes Programme, increasing the total funding to over £9 billion. The additional £2 billion is expected to provide around 25,000 affordable homes, including housing in the socially rented sector. It is also important that a stable financial environment is secured for both social housing providers and renters by setting out a long term rent deal. The proposal, which would grant social tenants the security and certainty they need, will be consulted on this year.
NHS future plan
The Prime Minister has made a commitment that the government will deliver a long term plan for the NHS, and that we would bring forward a multi-year funding settlement in support of it. We have committed £10 billion in new funding for the NHS since last November alone. But after the most challenging winter for many years, we can be in no doubt about the pressures in the system, nor the challenges ahead. We will be looking after a million more over 70's in 2020 than five years' before, while the number of over 85's will nearly double by 2035. But we need to move away from annual top-ups to the NHS's budget towards a sustainable long-term plan. This means building on the work of the Five Year Forward View but looking beyond it with long-term commitments which allow the NHS to realise greater productivity and efficiency gains. We will, therefore, come forward with a long term plan for the NHS, in conjunction with its leaders, clinicians and health experts. As the PM set out, our new plan must turbo charge progress in spreading the excellence which exists in parts of the system across the whole of the NHS. We also know that care is still not properly integrated for people who have both health and social care needs, that the system is often not accountable to patients or the taxpayer, and that citizens should be supported to take more responsibility for their health.
First, let me say that in my opinion the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge Expressway is very unlikely to affect Otmoor or other SSSIs in the constituency. The proposed Expressway is part of a wider project currently referred to as the Oxford - Milton Keynes - Cambridge Arc. It is a major project but one which is at an early stage. Much of the preparatory work for this was completed by the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC). This work is not Government policy and the Government has made no response to the NIC on its proposals. What it has done is to ask my colleague Iain Stewart MP, who has been appointed Government champion for the project, to make recommendations which is why I organised a meeting with him and 25 of my potentially most affected parish councils so that they could make their points directly to him. In addition, I hope to be making points on behalf of the constituency at a meeting with Highways England shortly.
For my part I have already had discussion also with the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that he is aware of the local issues and have also put these concerns in writing to him. I have also written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to include the A420 to Swindon within the project and I have pointed out the extent of Green Belt around Oxford. I am of the firm opinion that the route should utilise existing roads wherever possible rather than carve a new path through Green Belt land or damage other areas of environmental interest and I have suggested it needs to be routed to the west of Oxford,
I am sure you will be pleased to know that I have also raised concerns about the transparency of the work on this project. A project of this magnitude should have ready access to as much information as possible in the public domain. I accept that some competitive data needs to remain private but feel that the lack of information is adding to speculation. I have asked the Secretary of State to intervene so that as much information as possible can be immediately put into the public domain with explanation as to what is being held back and why. I have also asked him to ensure that there is full public consultation before a route is decided and not just on the preferred option. One of the recommendations of Iain Stewart MP is that the project needs considerably more public buy-in before it goes ahead.
I understand that Highways England are currently looking at possible 'corridors' for the road. They will decide which in the summer – no date has yet been given. Once the actual corridor is chosen work will begin to determine the route but this is unlikely to take place before the mid to late 2020s.
I would also encourage you to make your views known to the Leader of the County Council, Ian Hudspeth (email@example.com) and Nigel Tipple, Chief Executive of the Oxfordshire Local Economic Partnership (firstname.lastname@example.org). Although both say that they have not decided on a preferred route, both have influence on this through their work as part of the Oxfordshire Growth Board. It is important that they are aware of the views of our local communities. I understand too that other councils along the route have already engaged in public consultation.
I attach a letter and an email I have received from NHS Property Services about the parking at Townlands Memorial Hospital. They provide useful information about:
The email gives the details of who at NHS Property Services people should complain to.
I do not want anyone to be in any doubt about the right of the Windrush children who came to the UK between 1948 and 1971 to remain here.
We're not aware of any evidence that anyone has been wrongly deported. There have been a very small number of cases of former Commonwealth citizens who have the right to be here being subject to removal action and detention. This is not acceptable and should not happen again.
The Home Office is setting up a new dedicated team that will work across Government to help individuals identify and gather evidence to confirm their existing right to be in the UK. The team will include a dedicated contact point and aim to resolve cases within 2 weeks once the evidence has been put together. We recognise that some of these people may struggle to evidence when they arrived and how long they have been in the UK, so this dedicated team will work with other departments and any other relevant bodies to help people provide the evidence they need. They won't need to just rely on formal records. Any information they can provide, from schools they attended to places of work, family or former addresses will help build this picture.
No one should be left out of pocket as they go through this process.