House of Commons
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
On the front page of today’s Order Paper it is noted that on 4 September 1916, Lieutenant Colonel Duncan Frederick Campbell DSO, Duke of Wellington’s Regiment (West Riding), Member for North Ayrshire, wounded at the first battle of Ypres, November 1914, and again on the western front in 1916, died from his wounds in Southwold, Suffolk. We remember him today.
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
Under the scheme, local authorities sign up to accept refugees on a voluntary basis. Between the start of October 2015 and the end of June 2016, 2,646 people were resettled under the scheme across 118 different local authorities. The resettlement programme has sufficient pledges of places from local authorities across the UK to resettle 20,000 vulnerable Syrians and will continue to work closely with them to turn those pledges into places.
Michael Tomlinson
I welcome this Government’s record in supporting the people of Syria. Many councils across this country are playing their part by taking in refugees. I am encouraging the local authorities in my constituency to do that, but they need support. Will the Home Secretary update the House on what support and encouragement she is giving to local authorities to do just that?
Amber Rudd
I ask my hon. Friend to pass on my congratulations to his authority on its kind support. It is essential that the scheme is implemented on a voluntary basis. He is right: we provide support over a five-year period, and it is tapered, but we recognise that it is important to provide essential financial support to the local authorities which are supporting these vulnerable Syrians.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary to her first Home Office questions and wish her well in the job.
I welcome the work that local authorities are doing. The right hon. Lady will know that two weeks ago several of us met a Syrian teenager in Calais whose family is here in Britain and who was given take charge leave by the British Government two months ago, but who is still in Calais alone in awful and dangerous conditions. He has now been given a transfer date for later this week, but only because three MPs and two national newspapers intervened in his case. There are hundreds more children and teenagers in Calais in awful conditions. Will she urgently intervene, speed up the bureaucracy and sort out those cases?
Amber Rudd
I recognise the excellent work that the right hon. Lady does in this area in drawing attention to the needs of the people in the Calais camp. She may already be aware of this, but I point out to the general public that that is French territory and it is French law that we have to engage with in order to help those people. We are identifying the children who we can help and we are now able to speed up that process and will continue to watch it carefully.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary join me in commending local volunteer groups such as Refugees Welcome in Richmond, which has set up its own initiative, liaising with local councils to make sure that new people coming over—vulnerable Syrian refugees—are locally and specially welcomed in our local communities?
Amber Rudd
I join my hon. Friend in making that point—how important it is for families to be welcomed by the community. These families are not foisted on the community; communities are saying that they want to welcome them. I commend what is being done in Richmond, and I know that many other communities and individuals are volunteering to help. Some of them are going on the website Help Refugees in the UK in order to find out how they can help.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I welcome the Home Secretary to her first Home Office questions. I also welcome her confirmation yesterday that there are going to be enough local authority places for the promised quota of 20,000 vulnerable Syrians to be resettled by 2020. I am sure she will wish to congratulate Scotland on welcoming more than 1,000 of those refugees under the scheme to date, which is more than a third of the total number who have been accepted in the whole of the UK. Will she now commit to extending the Government’s resettlement commitment past 2020 and opening it up to other refugees in need of protection?
Amber Rudd
I join the hon. and learned Lady in congratulating Scotland on the work that it has done and on its early adoption. Who can forget the early pictures of the refugees arriving on the Isle of Bute and what a heart-warming sight that was? There is still work to do to welcome the 20,000. I was pleased to announce over the weekend additional funding for language courses for those people. For now we will not go further, but we will of course continually keep the situation under review.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to her more than deserved place. I strongly suspect that you, Mr Speaker, and indeed the whole House, will welcome the four Syrian refugee families who are now housed in Beeston in my constituency, and congratulate Broxtowe Borough Council and Councillors Jan Goold and Janet Patrick on all their hard work. What assurances can the Home Secretary give to councils such as Broxtowe that the current financial support will extend for as long as it takes to keep people safe in our country?
Amber Rudd
I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating Broxtowe Council on the work that it has done to welcome those families. I can reassure her and her council that the funds are in place for the five years that are tapered. I hope that she will also welcome the announcement I made at the weekend on additional funding for English language lessons, which are so important as part of allowing these families to form part of the community and fully engage in it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I commend the Home Secretary for the early initiative she has taken on this issue. She will be aware, however, that many local authorities have not yet been required to take any refugees, while others are taking them and would take more. Does that willingness to take refugees not illustrate that the target of 20,000 by 2020 was unnecessarily modest and could now be revisited?
Amber Rudd
I am not yet ready to say that 20,000 is not enough. We have worked incredibly hard to make sure that the 20,000 are welcomed and are going to be properly looked after. The important thing is to concentrate on making sure that every one of those 20,000 gets the proper support from the communities in which they are housed, and gets the important language lessons. I ask for the right hon. Gentleman’s patience in making sure that we support the 20,000 over the next few years.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
It is not just a question of numbers; we have to make sure that we get the right people. I very much welcome the fact that we are bringing them in from the middle east rather than from Calais. I congratulate Wiltshire Council, which has taken on, I think, 20 Syrian families so far. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just a question of the people but of finding education, healthcare, social care and so much other infrastructure in the local area, and hopefully jobs for them as well, and not just bringing them in and leaving them to it?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are taking these families through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which vets the potential arrivals very carefully and ensures that we are getting the people who are indeed most in need, to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention. Local authorities decide whether they have the capacity in terms of health places and school places. We are very fortunate in this country that sufficient authorities have volunteered to help the 20,000. That is testament to the strength and generosity of the British people.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
We continue to work with the French, Greek and Italian authorities and others to improve family reunification processes for unaccompanied children. We have seconded a UK official to Greece, we have a long-standing secondee working in Italy, and we will shortly be seconding another official to the French Interior Ministry. Transfer requests under the Dublin obligation are now generally processed within 10 days and children transferred within weeks. More than 120 children have been accepted for transfer this year from Europe.
Wayne David
As we speak today, there are hundreds of children in Calais who have a legal right to be reunited with their families in this country. Those children are putting their lives at risk by jumping on trains and lorries. What, specifically, are the Government doing to help those children in Calais?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the Dublin obligation we have an obligation, which we are acting on, to work with the authorities in France to remove the children who have a family representative in the UK. We are working on that. Since the passage of the Immigration Act 2016 in May, we have agreed to take 30, of whom we have taken approximately half, and we have taken 120 this year. He should not underestimate the difficulty in making sure that we always do what is lawful under French law and EU law at the same time.
Stephen Gethins
The Home Secretary will be aware of significant concern about this issue in humanitarian organisations. With the onset of winter just a couple of months away, and given the time that it is taking, will she commit to additional resources and to coming back to the House within the next month to tell us how many children she will take?
Amber Rudd
I am always keen to update the House on the latest results from what my Department is doing. We are aware of the humanitarian need and that is why the Government are so committed to ensuring that we work in the best interests of the children. We will always work in the best interest of those children and we will always ensure that that is within French and EU law.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I welcome any sense of urgency from the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I visited Calais just two weeks ago and were disappointed yet again to find young, vulnerable children with no one to support or look after them. What can the Secretary of State tell me about whether we can put safeguarding in place in Calais when we have identified those children and had take charge requests to look after them there? May we also have a Home Office official based there, and not in Paris?
Amber Rudd
I met my French counterpart last week as well as our representatives, who attend the camp. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware, like many other Members of the House who have visited the camp, that there is a fine line between wanting to ensure that we help and safeguard those children and ensuring that we do not encourage the traffickers to bring more children to the camp, thereby making more children more vulnerable. We are doing our best to tread that fine line and ensure that we always support those vulnerable children, but it is not as simple as my hon. Friend tries to pretend.
Mr Speaker
Order. I understand the natural inclination to look at one’s interlocutor, but if the Home Secretary and other Ministers could address the House, that would be greatly appreciated.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The situation in the “jungle”, which I visited recently, is truly horrific. I invite the Home Secretary to join me on a visit to Dover and Calais to see the situation in the “jungle” and the evil activities of the people traffickers. Will she work with me to do our best between Britain and France to end the evil trade of modern slavery that these people traffickers are pursuing?
Amber Rudd
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work to keep me informed and to support what the Government do, to ensure not only smooth traffic between Dover and Calais but that we are always well informed of what is happening there. I will work with him to ensure that we do our best. The real criminals in this are the traffickers, who do such terrible, violent work and take advantage of families.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Amber Rudd
We have a secondee in Greece, we are working closely with the Greek Government and we have identified some children whom we think we can assist, so they will not need to come to Calais. We anticipate that the first arrivals in the UK will be this month.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
May I take the Home Secretary back to those young people for whom take charge requests have been accepted? They have family here waiting for them to arrive. When we talk about fine lines, surely in the case of these young people, when we have accepted the responsibility and when they are at risk of attack, as we saw, or of exploitation and trafficking, the line has been crossed and we have a responsibility to ensure that they get back to their family and that they avoid situations that are not safe. Let us make them safe rather than putting them at risk of exploitation and trafficking.
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is right to refer to the fine line and to the fact that the camp is a place of terror and danger. We will follow up on our obligations, and as I said in answer to an earlier question, we are now managing to move more quickly. I ask him not to underestimate the difficulty sometimes of dealing with French law and EU law. We cannot simply move in and take action; we must act within the law, which is always in the best interests of the child.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary to her new role. I was in Calais at the weekend for the second time this summer. Both times I met some of the 800 young unaccompanied children in that camp—children who told me that in the many months they have been there they have not spoken to a single Government official. I met a pregnant woman who said that she had tried to claim asylum in France, but the system is so broken that she was told it would be months before they would even begin to process her application. These people are living in hell because of a lack of bureaucracy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) is absolutely right. They need our safeguarding, because they are sleeping in tents with strange men. Will the Home Secretary meet me and other MPs affected by this issue and concerned about it to discuss how we can change that?
Amber Rudd
I would point out to the hon. Lady that the French have already dispersed 5,000 people from the camp. The Interior Minister has already said that he has plans to make sure, by the end of the year, that the camp is phased out so that everybody can be rehoused. It is important for the children to know, as the adults know, that they are not forced to come to the UK to find a bed; they can claim asylum in France, and the French Government are willing to do that. The hon. Lady should have a care not to encourage unwittingly the traffickers to bring more children to the camps.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
PCSOs have played a key role in policing our communities in recent years and they should play a greater role in the future, which is why the Policing and Crime Bill sets out a series of reforms that will allow chief constables to designate them with a wider range of powers. Obviously, decisions on the size and composition of a police force’s workforce are for individual chief officers and police and crime commissioners.
Derek Thomas
St Ives town will be well known to the Minister from his former role as Housing Minister. I am sure that he is glad to be rid of that role, but he has a new problem in St Ives. Sergeant Friday is a popular and influential neighbourhood police officer and a valued member of the local policing team in St Ives. Some 5,000 people support him in his current role, and yet he will soon be moved by Devon and Cornwall police to, in effect, a back-office role. What can the Minister do to support local community policing in St Ives and safeguard front-line policing roles?
Brandon Lewis
I congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting an issue that is clearly important to his constituents. This must be an impressive PCSO and sergeant for so many of them to get behind him and sign his form. Obviously, those kinds of operational decisions are for the force’s chief constable, but I will visit my hon. Friend’s area soon and hope I get a chance to meet a sergeant who can endeavour to get that kind of support from his local community.
Ian C. Lucas
In Wrexham town centre we have fewer police and more antisocial behaviour under this Government. PCSOs, introduced by a Labour Government, are very welcome and perform a valuable role, but there is a disturbing lack of understanding and clarity about their powers. Will the review that the Government should undertake make clear to the general public and to offenders how important PCSOs are?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about PCSOs being important. They play a key role, which is why I am pleased that their number has increased by about 40% in his part of the world since 2010. It is also important that the Policing and Crime Bill will give chief constables the power to look at what is right for their area and to give powers to PCSOs and other volunteers to do the work that is appropriate for their local area.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I was with one of the few remaining PCSOs in Kettering on Friday for a walkabout in the town, and it would appear that, were it not for the funding provided by Kettering Borough Council, of which I am proud to be a member, there would be no PCSOs at all in the borough of Kettering. Does the Policing Minister agree that PCSOs are vital for developing the intelligence picture locally, and that without them it would be difficult to see how front-line officers could do that?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I was a council leader in local government when PCSOs were first introduced, and my council funded them even back then. They play an important part in the remit and powers of chief constables and, indeed, PCCs to make sure that they gather the intelligence they need to prevent crime, which is obviously our first priority.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister must be aware of the survey conducted by Unison which shows that 78% of PCSOs say that they have become less visible, that their units have got smaller and that they have stopped doing patrolling and preventive work and are just doing call-backs on crime for other police officers. Is it not true that PCSOs are no longer doing what we created them for, and that, as a result, our communities feel abandoned by the police?
Brandon Lewis
I disagree with the right hon. Lady. She needs to think about the fact that crime is changing, so the way in which police forces fight crime needs to reflect the modern world that we live in and the crime that is happening in local areas. That is why it is absolutely right that the Government have moved crime fighting to be locally driven, with PCCs and chief constables having the powers that they need to fight crime locally in the way they see best.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
We continue to strengthen our counter-terrorism powers. The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 provided the police with new powers and created a general duty on public bodies to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. To apprehend terrorist suspects, the police and security agencies need to collect intelligence to support arrests and develop evidence to secure prosecutions.
Byron Davies
A major terror threat to the United Kingdom comes from people who are trafficked into this country. It is vital that we maintain the strongest possible intelligence-sharing relationships and agreements with other nations. What steps will the Home Secretary be taking to ensure that these agreements are prioritised and protected following the vote to leave the European Union?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for that important question, and I am aware of his expertise as a former police officer. We are leaving the European Union but I can reassure him that our co-operation on security with our European and global allies will be undiminished. We are about to begin negotiations and it would be wrong to set out unilateral positions in advance, but I share his view on this important matter.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I warmly welcome the Home Secretary to her post? I hope that she has a long and successful term as Home Secretary. As she knows, earlier this year Siddhartha Dhar left the country, having not handed over his passport to local police officers, and went to fight for Daesh. The Home Secretary’s predecessor, who is now the Prime Minister, changed the Policing and Crime Bill to make the situation tougher for those who seek to go abroad. Will the Home Secretary follow the advice of Mark Rowley, the head of counter-terrorism, and expect suspects to hand over their passports as a precondition for bail?
Amber Rudd
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising this very important matter. This was a very distressing case, where the suspect was able to go away while on bail to do such damage and join Daesh in Syria. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is something that the former Home Secretary addressed, and we are looking at the best way to implement it. We may well follow the particular route that he has outlined, but rest assured that we take it very seriously.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I congratulate the Home Secretary on her new role. Does she agree that the Investigatory Powers Bill is essential if the intelligence services are to retain their existing capability to collect communications data, which is crucial in detecting terrorism and serious crime?
Amber Rudd
From her former role as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland my right hon. Friend will know how important it is to be able to collect that information. She is absolutely right that the Investigatory Powers Bill is critical to making sure that our police, security services and intelligence services have the tools that they need to get the convictions that we hope they will achieve.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On behalf of my party, I welcome the Home Secretary and her entire team to their roles. In Northern Ireland, we know the true benefits of the police and security services working together. The chief suspect in the murder this year of my constituent Adrian Ismay has been bailed and, despite having breached bail twice, he remains at large. When the police and security services succeed, what conversations will the Home Secretary have with the Ministry of Justice to make sure that the judiciary plays its part as well?
Amber Rudd
That is a matter for the judiciary in Northern Ireland, but rest assured that it is a matter that we take very seriously.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In welcoming the Home Secretary to her new role, may I ask her whether she has had a chance to see to what extent profiling of those who commit terrorist atrocities has been examined by her Department, by the police and by the security services? People such as the journalist Peter Hitchens have noted a correlation between drug abuse and the commission of atrocities that is rather greater than any link with a Muslim faith background, despite what one would normally expect. Therefore, if profiling is to be carried out successfully, will the appropriate effort be invested?
Amber Rudd
We have a behavioural unit in the Home Office that looks at types of behaviour that may lead to certain actions. Now that my right hon. Friend has raised that question with me, rest assured that I will look at it more seriously.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
In Birmingham, we are only too well aware that terrorism has not arrived on our shores only recently. I want to welcome the Home Secretary to her place. Does she agree with me and most of Birmingham that the relatives of the victims of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings should be treated equally and in parity with the relatives of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster, and should be provided with access to legal representation so that they can participate effectively in the inquests into the murder of their loved ones?
Amber Rudd
I know about this case—the hon. Lady has of course raised it with me previously—and I know about the campaigning she has done on behalf of her constituents and of the city in general. I do not know whether she is aware of this, but I am seeing the representatives of the Birmingham families this evening, and I will follow up with more information after that.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
Protecting the public is a priority for this Government, and it is important that checks undertaken are thorough. I visited the Metropolitan Police Service last week to see the work it is undertaking to tackle the delays, and I will also visit the DBS in the near future. I will continue to maintain a close interest in disclosure turnaround times and the work of the DBS.
Meg Hillier
I welcome the hon. Lady to her position, in which she is taking on the seemingly intractable problem of making sure that the Met police deal with DBS checks in good time. I have had 20 cases in the past 12 months, including of teachers and teaching assistants unable to get their checks in time to start work. The delays are causing havoc in people’s lives. I wish all power to her elbow in resolving this, but it has been going on for nearly a decade. What practical steps is she going to take?
Sarah Newton
I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s frustration at the delays in the Met police, but I assure her, based on my visit last week, that the DBS has increased the resources it has made available to the police. In the past six months alone, over 100 new members of staff have been recruited. It has made improvements to the processes it is undertaking, and I am looking at weekly performance statistics. She can be assured that I am doing everything in my power to speed up the processing of this very important service.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We must now try to speed up, as we have a lot to get through and I would like to accommodate colleagues.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
As crime falls, we know that it is also changing. The internet and new technology offer criminals new opportunities to commit crimes, such as fraud and cybercrime. We welcome the increased reporting to Action Fraud: such reporting has trebled since it was set up. With new experimental data from the Office for National Statistics, we will be able to better map the trends in cybercrime and, I hope, take steps to combat it.
Jack Dromey
On the day Parliament went into recess, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that there had been 5.8 million incidents of cybercrime in the past 12 months, affecting one in 10 of the population. This means that crime has near doubled. Does the Home Secretary agree that the legacy of her predecessor—now the Prime Minister—is one of 20,000 fewer police and soaring crime?
Mr Wallace
I do not think that that is much of a point. The reality is that, under the hon. Gentleman’s Government, there was no proper reporting mechanism for fraud. We set up Action Fraud, which has received the massive number of 300,000 referrals. Rather than playing politics with crime, the best advice we can all give our constituents is that GCHQ advises that if people change their passwords regularly and have up-to-date anti-virus, they will cut their vulnerability to cybercrime by 80%.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I hate to play politics with crime, but this Government have an excellent record on tackling both crime and cybercrime by setting up the National Cyber Crime Unit. I wonder whether the new Minister, whom I warmly welcome to his position, will use his imagination and energy to consider a bespoke career path, at graduate level, for people entering the police force. People tackling cybercrime perhaps need very different skills from those the police have relied on hitherto, before the growth of digital crime.
Mr Wallace
Yes, we are working on that. We are working on direct recruitment to ensure that both the police and the National Crime Agency have the skills they need. We have already invested in upskilling members of the NCA, which hosts the National Cyber Crime Unit. It is also very important to make people understand that everybody can play a role in defending against cybercrime, and that if they follow the advice of GCHQ, they will go far.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Wallace
Every day the police get good co-operation from many multimedia companies and internet service providers. We would, of course, like to see more, and will keep pressing companies for more because it is very important that we all protect vulnerable people from the effects the internet can have in turning them into radicals and attracting them to terrorism.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Given the increase in cybercrime, will the new Minister commit to investigating the storage of seized hardware and, specifically, ethical concerns that destruction orders on hardware containing child pornography can be successfully challenged by convicted offenders in court?
Mr Wallace
That is a very good point. We must make sure that the data are always there to help convict people of their crimes, and that those data cannot be challenged or put aside. I hope the hon. Lady will therefore support the Investigatory Powers Bill when it returns to this House, because the retention of data is one of the best ways to counter crime.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
For clarity, no one, particularly a child, chooses to be or facilitates being trafficked.
The Minister will know that online child abuse has reached unprecedented levels and is increasing. The Internet Watch Foundation states that there has been a 417% increase in child sexual abuse images since 2013, with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre stating that 50,000 people in the UK downloaded or shared images in 2012. However, children and parents are woefully underprepared when it comes to recognising or preventing abuse and exploitation online, despite the fact that 65% of 12 to 15-year-olds own a smartphone. What does the Minister plan to do to address and prevent online child abuse, other than changing passwords?
Mr Wallace
The obvious answer is that we need to continue to educate both parents and children, either in the school setting or at home, to make sure that they operate safely when they surf the net. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Home Office and the National Crime Agency have engaged in making sure that there are guides online for everyone of every age to follow. That is the first step. Certainly, the National Cyber Crime Unit, which I went to visit at the NCA, is responsible for making sure that we catch people whether at home or abroad, through its network of overseas postings, to make sure that we bring people to justice whatever side of the channel they are on.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The latest figures show that the reforms we have made to cut abuse across non-EU visa routes and toughen welfare provisions are working. Reducing the number of migrants coming to the UK will be a priority for the negotiations to leave the European Union.
Mr Nuttall
I welcome my hon. Friend to his new role, which must be one of the most challenging and difficult in Government. The most recent figures demonstrate, if proof were needed, that despite the steps already taken by the Government we urgently need new, clear, workable and effective policies. Will he set out when he intends to bring such policies before the House?
Mr Goodwill
We are committed to bringing down net migration to sustainable levels as soon as possible. It will take time to do so, because until we leave the European Union we will still be affected by the free movement rules, but we are doing everything we can now to ensure that the numbers come down. At every step of the negotiations we will work to ensure the best possible outcome for the British people and it would be wrong to set out unilateral positions in advance of that.
Mr Goodwill
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; we may have been on different sides of the referendum campaign, but we are quite clearly all on the same side now in delivering the result for the British people. The Home Office will be the lead Department in negotiations on this, but we look forward to working with the Brexit Department, and I suspect that the Prime Minister may be taking an interest, given her experience in the Home Office.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
In China, the Prime Minister has unilaterally announced that Britain will not be adopting the points-based system on which the leave campaign put so much emphasis during the referendum, but that we will be doing something more effective. Can the Minister tell us what that is?
Mr Goodwill
When the Labour party introduced a points-based system, the numbers went straight up. Australia has a points-based system and higher immigration per capita than Britain. A points-based system would give foreign nationals a right to come to Britain if they meet certain criteria. An immigration system that works for Britain would ensure that the right to decide who comes to the country resides with this Government.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Logan practice in my constituency—it is my own GP practice—has already sponsored medical students from the American University of Beirut for a four-week learning experience. This year’s student, Ghaith Rukba, a Syrian national, has been refused entry, although he would be coming on exactly the same basis as previous applicants. Will the Minister meet me urgently to review the case, as Mr Rukba is due to arrive on 24 September?
Mr Goodwill
It is certainly the aim of the Government to ensure that those who wish to come to our blue-chip universities—the Russell Group universities—to study can do so, but I understand that there are specific cases for courses. I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that case and facilitate it.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his post. It is essential that our excellent universities continue to attract students from all over the world, but does he agree that it is not sustainable to go on with a situation in which almost two thirds of all non-EU students who come into this country stay? Our existing rules need to be enforced.
Mr Goodwill
It is very important that when people come here to study from abroad and gain a qualification, they take it back and improve the development of the countries from which they came. It is not the intention that getting a place at a university in the UK is a licence to stay in the UK for the rest of someone’s life.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
A decade ago, Labour introduced a points-based system for non-EU migration. In the referendum campaign, five of the Home Secretary’s Cabinet colleagues and many Conservative MPs pledged to extend it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) has said, without consultation or debate, the Prime Minister today ruled that out but failed to tell us what she would do instead. That comes as the Italian Government make this warning: the more the UK Government limit EU citizens in the UK, the more the Italian Government will limit the presence of UK goods in Europe. The stakes are high, but just when the country needs leadership, we have confusion. The Home Secretary presented proposals to the Cabinet last week. Will the Minister tell us what they were so that we can begin finally to have a proper debate about what Brexit means for Britain?
Mr Goodwill
The right hon. Gentleman may have heard somebody saying this morning that a points-based system is not a silver bullet. When we took power in 2010, Labour’s immigration system was chaotic and broken. People from outside the EU with no skills at all were allowed to come. Indeed, search parties were sent out to encourage mass immigration.
Andy Burnham
That was a complete non-answer. People at home might wonder why we are getting non-answers on Brexit: it is because the Government told the civil service not to plan for it, hence the confusion we are in. There is one issue that the Minister could clear up today—the status of EU nationals who are already here. The failure to address that is creating uncertainty for families who have chosen to make their lives here, and hostility towards some EU nationals. The whole country was appalled by the attack in Harlow in late August that led to the death of a Polish national, Arkadiusz Jozwik. It is in the Minister’s and the Home Secretary’s gift to change that climate. Will he and she respect the unanimous vote of this House back in July and confirm the status of all EU nationals who are already here?
Mr Goodwill
We have always made it clear that the status of EU nationals is not under threat at all. Indeed, we have always made the point that, during the negotiations, so long as those same protections are available to UK citizens living abroad, they will be there for those who come here from the rest of Europe. I pay tribute to the contribution made to the British economy by those who come to work not just from the European Union, but from further afield. We want to attract the brightest and best, but we must control the numbers that come.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
Co-operation between the UK and European Union member states has continued following the referendum result, including on European arrest warrants. Officials are exploring options for future co-operation arrangements once the UK has left the European Union. We will do what is necessary to keep people safe, but it would be wrong to set out unilateral positions before that negotiation has taken place.
Chris Bryant
But the Brexit Secretary has always campaigned for us to leave the European arrest warrant and so has the Foreign Secretary. Does the Home Secretary agree with them, or does she agree with her predecessor—now the Prime Minister—who, when we debated this in this House, said that 901 suspected serious criminals, including paedophiles, rapists and murderers, had been extradited either in or out of this country thanks to the European arrest warrant? Would it not be far better for her to say now that she will protect British people by making sure we remain within the European arrest warrant?
Amber Rudd
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we on the Government Benches value the European arrest warrant. We know how important it has been in keeping people safe. When people voted to leave the European Union, they did not vote for a less safe country. We will make sure that, whatever the outcome of the negotiations, we protect people in a way that is as effective as with the European arrest warrant.
Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Home Secretary to her first questions, but I do hope we will get better answers than the ones we have just had from the Immigration Minister. I will give it one more go, Mr Speaker, this time on security.
Last week, in relation to discussions with the French Government on Calais, a senior Government source briefed The Times that the UK might withdraw co-operation on counter-terrorism if it does not get its way, referencing the Nice attack. At a time when France is facing an unprecedented terror threat, that is utterly crass. It is also counter-productive, as the terror networks that threaten France could have links here. Will the Home Secretary today distance herself from this insensitive threat, vow that there will be no repeat of it, and commit to maintaining the fullest co-operation with our EU counterparts and neighbours on counter-terrorism, including to maintaining our involvement in the European arrest warrant?
Amber Rudd
There is something completely derisory about the right hon. Gentleman trying to lecture the Government on security measures when we know how divided his shadow Front Bench is, with a leader of his party who refuses to defend this country, and a shadow Chancellor who calls for the disbandment of the police and does not support MI5. Government Members are absolutely clear that we will do what is right to support and protect this country. The right hon. Gentleman is right on one element: in my many conversations with European counterparts I always say to them that we will work with them, irrespective of Brexit, to ensure our joint security.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Prime Minister has been clear that she wants to protect the status of EU nationals here. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible are, as I have already said, if British citizens’ rights in other EU member states were not protected in return.
Richard Arkless
In the two months since the EU referendum, the EU citizens in my constituency have become increasingly anxious. They literally lie awake at night wondering whether they will still be able to call my constituency their home. Will the Home Secretary do the decent thing and guarantee that no EU citizens will be used as bargaining chips in the forthcoming negotiations following the triggering of article 50?
Mr Goodwill
I repeat again that there is no change in the status of EU nationals living and working in the UK. The issue is not simply about the immigration status of an individual; EU citizens’ rights are far broader than just the right to reside in the UK. The right to work, entitlement to benefits and pensions, the rights of access to public services and the ability to be joined by family members from countries outside the EU all need to be discussed.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Mr Goodwill
I hope I have already made that clear, but I recognise that EU citizens make an invaluable contribution to our economy, our society and our daily lives. They provide vital services, including in the NHS, where almost one in 10 doctors and one in 15 nurses are from an EU country. That is why the Government will seek an early resolution to this issue.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Last week, in a statement issued by the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party press office, a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament, Alexander Burnett, questioned the right of EU citizens resident in Scotland to participate in Scottish politics. This has caused great concern in Scotland. Will the Minister unreservedly condemn this statement and give EU citizens resident in Scotland, and indeed across the UK, the assurance that they are still welcome to participate in politics and civic society?
Mr Goodwill
So long as we are members of the EU, the status of those citizens does not change.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are running late and I fear that colleagues are making up for unspoken words in August with spoken words in September. That said, I am very keen to accommodate two further inquiries. I call Mr Simon Hoare.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
Fraud is a heinous crime, which can have a devastating effect on individuals, families and the most vulnerable members of society. That is why this Government launched the Joint Fraud Taskforce last February with law enforcement and banks, and have committed to spending £1.9 billion over the next five years on cyber-security, including to tackle cyber-enabled fraud.
Simon Hoare
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What specific assessments has he made of fraud in my area?
Mr Wallace
The Joint Fraud Taskforce will obviously cover all of the United Kingdom. Of course, members of the banks and other organisations that are on the taskforce will be involved in ensuring that when people commit fraud, they cannot take the money out of the country, which will provide at least some time to track it down. I congratulate the Dorset police who in 2015 launched a fraud prevention campaign called “Hang up on Fraudsters” after reports that my hon. Friend’s county had lost over £1 million to fraud.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am still not convinced by what the Home Secretary said about European co-operation. Will the Minister confirm that we will remain members of Europol, which tackles fraud across Europe as well as in the United Kingdom?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman might have to wait a bit for the answer, because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and her ministerial colleagues will be meeting Europol. What we want to continue to do, first and foremost, is co-operate with Europol, Interpol and all the other forces of the European Union to make sure that this country is safe and secure.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
The Policing and Crime Bill will introduce statutory safeguards to the pre-charge bail process, including time limits and judicial oversight, which will increase accountability and scrutiny in a way that is manageable for the courts as well.
Karl MᶜCartney
I have met a now 18-year-old constituent of Lincoln—and his family—who has been on a pre-charge bail for over a year since he was 17. As far as anyone is aware, there has been no admission of guilt, and nor are the police or the CPS in a position to charge or take my constituent to trial, which is yet another disturbing aspect of the case. I am fully aware that this is an operational matter for the police, but my constituent’s rights to a family life and education are currently being detrimentally severely impacted by what I feel is the police’s underfunded and understaffed investigation. Will my hon. Friend please agree to meet me to discuss my constituent’s situation and how police forces across the country can best avoid lengthy periods of pre-charge bail, particularly for young suspects?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not right that some people can spend months or even years on pre-charge bail, with few or no safeguards. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how reforms might affect the case he mentions. We will bring forward further amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure that 17-year-olds are treated as children and are safeguarded as such.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
We are meeting this September after terrible events over the summer—in Nice, Charleroi, Normandy and Munich. We must step up international efforts to keep our people safe and tackle violent extremism. I have spoken over the summer to a number of my counterparts—not least the French Interior Minister, Bernard Cazeneuve—and they all agree that the UK must not step back from international co-operation on security and counter-terrorism. We will not shirk that.
Bridget Phillipson
In 2015, Northumbria police were involved in 13 extraditions. If the Home Secretary is unable to commit to retaining the European arrest warrant—I listened to her earlier answers, which did not offer a great deal of comfort—will she set out in much more detail how she will make sure that we continue to have the powers we need to tackle cross-border crime, keep our country safe and bring criminals to justice?
Amber Rudd
I remind the hon. Lady that nothing has changed yet. We will still have the European arrest warrant in place. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that she will not trigger article 50 until next year, so I urge the hon. Lady to work with her police force and reassure them that nothing has changed for now—so we can carry on with the European arrest warrant.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
First, we are investing in a new software programme for ActionFraud that will not only improve the analytics of crimes that are reported to it, but allow victims of fraud to track their cases in live time online. In response to my hon. Friend’s concern, I have also asked officials to look into how ActionFraud communicates with members of the public. I think it important to remember that these are victims, many of whom have done nothing wrong whatsoever and have been preyed upon by some of the worst people in society.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will be aware of continuing concern about the historical conduct of South Yorkshire police. I understand that she is meeting members of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign next week to discuss their call for a public inquiry. Is she also aware of the tragic case of Terry Coles, a Swansea City supporter, who was trampled to death by a police horse at a football match in 2000? Will she agree to look at the evidence, and accept that, unless we have the truth about all these past injustices, we shall not be able to restore trust in South Yorkshire police?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady is right: I am meeting members of Orgreave Truth and Justice, and I look forward to having the opportunity to hear from them. The Government have not shirked in looking at historical cases, and if the hon. Lady wants to bring any more to my attention, I shall certainly look at those.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: local authorities are leading by example and showing how to welcome families into their communities, and I particularly congratulate Redditch on being ahead of the pack. So far 118 councils are participating, and we hope that that number will grow.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Mr Wallace
It is incredibly important that when people return—and we hope that they do—they are properly introduced back into society. If they pose a threat, it is important for that threat to be managed, and it is also important that if they can be removed from radicalisation, we take the right steps to do that. I will certainly review the hon. Lady’s request for the publication of the number of passports, for instance, that have been withheld from individuals. First and foremost, however, I assure her that we have measures in place to ensure that these people are not just left alone and we do not lose track of them of them, which would pose further risks to the British people.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Mr Wallace
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the leadership that he has shown on not only fraud but consumer rights in ensuring that the vulnerable in society are not taken advantage of. We have set up a Joint Fraud Taskforce, inviting, for instance, Age Concern to help to protect the elderly, so that we can do more to ensure that in future the people who commit those crimes are caught and the elderly are defended from unscrupulous behaviour.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Amber Rudd
We take our obligations under the Dublin agreement very seriously, and will always look into how we can help unaccompanied refugees. We have seconded officials working with Greek, Italian and French counterparts, and we hope to be able to speed up the process.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
Obviously, decisions on whether to recruit individuals are for the chief officer of the police force concerned and each case should be treated on its merits, but I can say that we have no plans to change guidance, and the college guidance is very clear: the candidates
“should not have tattoos which could cause offence…or undermine the dignity and authority”
of the role of the police constable.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I am more than happy to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand exactly the point he makes that Daesh, the Taliban and Boko Haram in Nigeria, where I was last week, can indulge in some of these terrible acts, and we need to make sure we address that particular situation.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend highlights an important case, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) did a lot of work on this and is working with Councillor Peter Golds. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend if he feels that would be useful, but this is the subject of an ongoing investigation, and, indeed, commissioners have been put into Tower Hamlets by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Amber Rudd
I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has got a little ahead of the meeting I am having this afternoon in order to address exactly that proposal, so no decision has been made yet.
Mr Speaker
The general consensus is, I think, that on the whole it is better to be ahead than behind.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Recently I visited a UN Gift Box event in Southend on human trafficking organised by the Soroptimist society. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that the general public should do everything they can to co-operate with the police and other authorities to stamp out this dreadful trade?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The public have a vital role to play in tackling this horrendous crime. In July 2014 the Home Office ran a national TV, radio and online campaign raising awareness of human trafficking, and the campaign materials are available on gov.uk for use by partners.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Despite a UN resolution in May, the targeting of medical facilities, predominantly by the Syrian Government, continues, with at least 72 further attacks over the summer. This is clearly exacerbating the refugee crisis, so will the Home Secretary work with colleagues across Government to ensure that this despicable targeting of hospitals by the Syrian Government is stopped and international law is immediately complied with?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady raises an important point about an area that is undergoing horrendous experiences, and, yes, indeed I will: we will do everything we can to help the people of Syria who are undergoing those terrible circumstances.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Tragically, ex-footballer Dalian Atkinson recently died outside his father’s house in my constituency, following the deployment of Tasers by the police. The officers involved were not wearing bodycams. Does the Minister agree that all police carrying any sort of weapon should wear bodycams to protect both police and public?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend raises a tragic situation. The loss of any life is obviously tragic, and the deployment of body-worn video is an operational matter for police, but I hope she will appreciate that it would be inappropriate of me to comment further as there is an ongoing Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation ahead of the coroner’s inquest.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
A young couple in my constituency from Slovakia who have been in Scotland for 14 years began the process of applying for British citizenship after the Brexit vote. As the Home Secretary will be aware, the first stage is permanent right of residency. The lady in this couple was refused. The Home Secretary says nothing has yet changed, but I cannot understand how an EU national could be refused residency after living here for 14 years.
Amber Rudd
To be frank, it is difficult to comment on individual situations like that, but if the hon. Lady would like my Department to have a look, I ask her to please write to us about it and we will do so. I also ask her and other hon. Members to reassure their constituents that at the moment nothing has changed.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There is no point in blaming the French for the mess in Calais if we continue to be a magnet for illegal migrants. The fact is that we grant asylum to more illegal migrants than France does, and we deport fewer of them. Of the 44,000 applications received up to June, more than half were granted and only half those who were refused were deported. Will the new Home Secretary take action to deal with illegal migration?
Amber Rudd
I am always keen to take action to follow the law where it is appropriate. There are many reasons why we are more popular with asylum seekers than some other countries. It is often to do with language, with families or with the diaspora in our communities; it is not simply about the process around asylum seeking. My hon. Friend should rest assured that we take getting the numbers down very seriously.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Has the Home Secretary seen the report from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children which suggests that children as young as 11 are becoming the victims of revenge porn? These are primary school-aged children. When will Ministers in her Department and across Government start working together to eradicate this? We know that once these pictures get out into cyberspace, they can fuel online child abuse.
Sarah Newton
The hon. Gentleman raises a truly horrendous crime, and the Government have taken a great deal of action not only to bring in new offences and to prosecute them but, critically, to educate young people and their families about the risks they take when they share images of themselves online. We will do everything possible to protect young people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Humanitarian Law (Yemen)
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government assessments of breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I should like to thank the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) for raising this important matter and to pay tribute to him for his work on keeping the House up to date on these matters and providing the scrutiny we need. Recognising the importance of the issue, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary issued a written ministerial statement today to update Parliament on the situation in Yemen, and this update specifically includes references to international humanitarian law.
We are aware of reports of alleged violations of international humanitarian law by parties to the conflict. As I have said on many occasions, we take these allegations very seriously. The Government regularly raise the importance of compliance with international humanitarian law with the Saudi Arabian Government and other members of the Saudi Arabian-led military coalition. The Foreign Secretary raised the issue of international humanitarian law compliance most recently with his Saudi counterpart, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, on 22 August. I also did so in Jeddah on 25 August, at the Yemen conference chaired by Secretary John Kerry.
It is important that, in the first instance, the Saudi Arabian-led coalition conducts thorough and conclusive investigations into incidents where it is alleged that international humanitarian law has been breached. This follows international practice. The coalition has the best insight into its own military procedures and will be able to conduct the most thorough and conclusive investigations. This will also allow the coalition forces to understand what went wrong and to apply the lessons learned in the best possible way. This is the standard that we set for ourselves and our allies. In this respect, Saudi Arabia announced more detail of how incidents of concern involving coalition forces are investigated on 31 January. The Saudi Arabian-led coalition joint investigations assessment team publicly announced the outcome of eight investigations on 4 August, and further publications will follow.
I also want to reiterate that clarifications made in the 21 July written ministerial statement do not reflect a change in position. The changes were made to ensure that the parliamentary record is consistent and that it accurately reflects policy. The statement of 21 July outlines that it is
“important to make clear that neither the MOD nor the FCO reaches a conclusion as to whether or not an IHL violation has taken place in relation to each and every incident of potential concern that comes to its attention. This would simply not be possible in conflicts to which the UK is not a party, as is the case in Yemen.”
The MOD monitors incidents of alleged international humanitarian law violations using the available information. This has been used to form an overall view on Saudi Arabia’s approach and attitude to international humanitarian law. In turn, that informs the risk assessment made under the consolidated criteria on whether there is a risk that something might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We are not acting to determine whether a sovereign state has or has not acted in the breach of international humanitarian law. Instead, as criterion 2(c) requires, we are acting to make an overall judgment.
I am sorry that there has been confusion. We are responding to two written ministerial statements that were in error. After trawling through other such statements, of which there are more than 90, four more were seen to be in error. I came to the House today in order to clarify that, but as soon as I became aware of it I made a statement and wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and the Chairs of the International Development Committee, the Committees on Arms Export Controls, and the Foreign Affairs Committee. I hope that that has clarified the situation.
Hilary Benn
I thank the Minister for his reply. As he knows, there have been many reports by the UN and others of breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen by both the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition, which uses British military equipment. Ministers have been repeatedly questioned about that and the Government told the House that they
“have assessed that there has not been a breach of IHL by the coalition.”
Then, as we have just been told, on 21 July—by chance, the day on which the House rose—a written ministerial statement corrected that and other answers, stating that the Government have
“been unable to assess that there has been a breach of IHL by the Saudi-led Coalition.”
That is the very opposite of what the House had been repeatedly told. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say, but he offered no satisfactory explanation of why that happened. First, will he do so now? It was not a minor correction but a consistent failure to provide Members with accurate answers.
Secondly, the mistakes were identified on 24 June, as I understand it, but they were not reported to the House until 27 days later, even though the “Ministerial Code” says that Ministers must correct
“any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.”
Why did it take so long?
Thirdly, after months of the Government being apparently incapable of doing an assessment of international humanitarian law, they have managed to undertake one during the recess in relation to the arms export tests, which state that a licence should not be granted
“if there is a clear risk... of a serious violation”
of IHL. The Foreign Secretary said in a written statement only this morning:
“Having regard to all the information available to us, we assess that this test has not been met.”
When is an assessment not an assessment? Will the Minister now tell us what detailed assessment preceded the conclusion that was reported to the House today and what information it drew upon? Will he publish both?
Finally, will the Government now suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia until they are able to assure the House that they have done a proper assessment and can explain why they believe that international humanitarian law has not been breached in Yemen when the UN clearly says that it has?
Mr Ellwood
Let us take a step back and make it clear why Saudi Arabia is leading the coalition to support President Hadi. It is allowed to because of UN resolution 2216, of which the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware. Were it not for that, the atrocities that we see and the devastation that is taking place would be a lot worse. The Houthis would have pushed far down through Sana’a, the capital, and all the way to the port of Aden. It would be a humanitarian catastrophe.
Having said that, we absolutely need to make sure that our allies and partners are honouring international humanitarian law, which is why we have regularly raised these matters. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to join me when the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister comes to this place on Wednesday to address any questions that are put by parliamentarians; it is at 10 o’clock and the right hon. Gentleman is more than welcome to come. I will make sure, because I will be moderating the event, that he is able to put some of these questions to the Foreign Minister.
On the general point, the right hon. Gentleman simply repeated the difference in the two lines, which I have endeavoured to correct. I have answered more than 90 parliamentary questions on this matter. We found out that two of them were incorrectly written, with a further trawl showing that four more were incorrectly written, and we immediately decided to correct the matter. I agree that the timing, first in replying to the various heads of the Committees, was slower than it should have been. If he knows me, he will know that I would not sit on this matter; the reason for this was simply that there was a change of government, and there were delays—I did not even know whether I was going to continue in this portfolio. As soon as I became aware of the situation, I made sure that the necessary information was out there and that we did a further trawl to make sure nothing else was erroneous. I then wrote to the relevant Committee Chairs and to the right hon. Gentleman.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that it is in our interest, and in their interest, that our regional allies in the Saudi-led coalition comply with international humanitarian law in their operations in Yemen? Will he remind the House that the Gulf Co-operation Council states are our allies and that the coalition is operating under the authority of a unanimously adopted UN resolution, in response to an illegal usurpation of power in Yemen?
Mr Ellwood
I am grateful for the question, which gives me licence to spell out the fact that this is new territory for Saudi Arabia. We have learnt to make sure that when errors are made on the battlefield and there is collateral damage, we put our hand up and say that something has happened that should not have happened; that is exactly what the Americans did in Kunduz, in Afghanistan, when the hospital was hit. We are dealing here with a conservative nation not used to such exposure, and I am pleased to say that we are making progress to make sure that it answers to the international scrutiny that it must answer to.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I echo strongly the concerns raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn); the incorrect answers that he and other Members were given were totally unacceptable, as was the time in which they were corrected, which has added insult to injury. It is clear that the assurances this House was previously given on breaches of humanitarian law have proved inaccurate. Do other assurances that we have been given remain valid? In May, the then Minister for Defence Procurement, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), told this House that there was “no evidence” that coalition forces in Yemen had used cluster munitions in civilian areas. Indeed, he claimed that the cluster munitions found in Yemen, which had been responsible for the deaths and maiming of many innocent civilians, had come from “previous conflicts” in the region. Does the Foreign Office stand by that assessment? In May, we also asked a question that that Minister repeatedly failed to answer, so I give today’s Minister an opportunity to answer it: have the coalition forces in Yemen used weapons or planes manufactured in Britain in this conflict? Have they used them to drop cluster munitions? Have they used them to commit breaches of international humanitarian law? If we simply do not know the answers to those questions, is it right to continue selling weapons and planes to Saudi Arabia until we have answers?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady began by saying that it was unacceptable that these erroneous statements were put out, and I agree with her, which is why I wrote and took measures to make sure that the record was corrected. I make it very clear that the profile of interest in Yemen, with more than 90 written ministerial questions on the matter, is such that we had to correct the issue. Two errors were found, with a further four found on a trawl. That is why I wrote the necessary letters and produced the necessary statements to correct the matter, and I apologised to the Chamber. I hope that that apology is recognised; this was not some big plot or conspiracy to mislead. Our policy remains extremely clear on where we stand on our support for our friends in the Gulf.
The hon. Lady raises the sale of cluster munitions by Britain, which did happen before we signed the convention on cluster munitions—I think she is referring to the BL-755. I have seen one piece of evidence on that incident, and the bomb was unexploded; the bomblets themselves were in the case.
Mr Ellwood
I am not saying that it was okay at all. What I am saying is that as soon as we found out about it, we asked Saudi Arabia to do exactly what any other country should do in the same situation, which is to determine what is going on. As soon as we have more information, we will certainly share it with the House. I invite the hon. Lady to pose those questions to the Saudi Foreign Minister when he comes to the House on Wednesday.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is tragic when anyone who is innocent is killed in such a conflict. I visited the Saudi-led air operations centre some months ago in Riyadh. I specifically asked the pilots and the commanders about their rules on weapons release on targets in Yemen, and I was very reassured by their answers. It was clear that their procedures now seem to be as good as our own. Does the Minister agree with me?
Mr Ellwood
There is no doubt that this has been a learning curve for Saudi Arabia. The conference that I attended and represented Britain at last week in Jeddah moved us forward from conflict and a military approach to looking at what agreement can be made politically and militarily so that we can put the matter behind us and create the stability that we need in that country.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The UK has a clear role in the conflict, and yet we are still no closer to learning why this Government have failed to carry out their own independent investigation into whether international humanitarian law was breached. Hospitals have been bombed and civilians have been killed. We must end arms sales to Saudi Arabia now and conduct our own investigation. Ministers must remove their heads from the sand and apologise to this House for attempting to brush the issue under the carpet. Parliament was misled six times. Rather than facing the music, did Ministers deliberately hide this knowledge from the House until the last day before the recess? This House and the public deserve more respect from this Government. A humanitarian disaster continues to unfold in front of our very eyes in the Yemen. We need answers and action today; nothing less will do. Will the Minister commit to ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia?
Mr Ellwood
I am sorry that the hon. Lady has adopted that tone. It is absolutely right that she holds the Government to account, and, in all fairness, she has been very consistent in doing that, but I have not been brushing any issues under the carpet—quite the contrary. I have been as open as I can be about these matters. I make it very clear to the House, as I said in my letter to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that if we are not satisfied with the Saudi Arabian investigation, we will not oppose an independent investigation. First, though, we must honour international standards and allow Saudi Arabia to conduct its own investigations, as we would be doing in similar circumstances.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm reports that the Prime Minister has raised concerns about the Yemen directly with Saudi Arabian leaders at the G20? Will he also say a bit more about what the Government are doing to try to get Saudi Arabia to sign up to the UN cluster munitions convention?
Mr Ellwood
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for her words. She is absolutely right that the G20 posed a huge opportunity for the Prime Minister to share thoughts and concerns about a number of matters pertaining to the middle east. I am not aware of what happened, but I will find out whether she was able to take up such an opportunity. I was certainly able to do so when I was with the Foreign Ministers from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates and John Kerry last week. As I have said, there is a further opportunity for this House to raise those questions too. My right hon. Friend also raised the issue of the cluster munitions convention. I have invited Saudi Arabia to consider signing it as an indication of where it wants to move to in the future.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House and correcting the record in respect of the errors that occurred. He will know that three Members of this House—the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and myself—were born in Yemen. Our fear is that Yemen is bleeding to death. There is a massive humanitarian crisis, the worst in the world. What is being done to get food in to the population of Yemen and to make sure that that happens as quickly as possible?
Mr Ellwood
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done. He obviously has a personal interest in the matter, as do others, and he has raised this subject on many occasions. I am pleased that he has raised the huge concern, which I think he House shares, about the humanitarian catastrophe that is unfolding in Yemen. For example, in July only 43% of the monthly food needs and only 23% of the fuel needs were met in that country. That is because there is no access or no complete access to the country. We need to see aid coming in not just through the port of Aden, but Hodeida further up the west coast opened up to provide access to the northern part of the country.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
Do the Government support the establishment of an international independent investigation following the human rights council, as we have done in other initiatives relating to conflicts in other countries, such as Sri Lanka?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend raises a valid point. The process that we follow is to encourage any country to conduct its own investigation, as we would do. As I stated in answer to a previous question, if we find those investigations wanting, we will call for an independent investigation. As I said in my opening remarks, eight publications have already come forward, having analysed certain breaches or events that have taken place, and there will be further publications on other events in the near future.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
Is it not a fact that the Saudi-led coalition to support the Yemen Government is clearly targeting civilian areas? Can the Minister remind us why we are supporting it?
Mr Ellwood
The conduct of war in Yemen is complicated. Much of the conflict is taking place in urban areas. The Houthis are using civilians as guards in order to deliberately take the battle into the towns and cities. It is very complicated indeed. We have encouraged Saudi Arabia and the coalition to make sure that as little collateral damage takes place as possible. The hon. Lady seems to suggest that if we did not support UN resolution 2216 and if we did not support President Hadi’s request for support, somehow Yemen would be in a better situation. I can tell her that quite the opposite would be the case.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that al-Qaeda is active in Yemen and, if so, how active?
Mr Ellwood
I can confirm that. As this House is only too aware, where there is conflict and instability, it is very easy for extremism to flourish, and Yemen is a great example of that. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is one of the most active branches of al-Qaeda, responsible for the printer cartridge bombing and for the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris. As long as there is instability, it will continue to flourish. The port of Mukalla in the south—an entire city—was until recently run by al-Qaeda. That is why we need a political solution for that country.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Just over a year ago my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and I presented a petition to this House about the dire humanitarian crisis in Yemen. In the light of today’s statement, may I urge the Minister to revisit the issue of immediate relatives and dependants of British citizens who cannot get out of Yemen, many of whom are stuck in areas that do not have access to humanitarian aid workers and who are having to wait up to 12 months for a decision on their applications to come to Britain? May I urge him to work with his colleagues in the Home Office to speed up this process?
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady raises two important and related issues. The first is to do with the international humanitarian support for the country. This is something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will be raising at the UN General Assembly to see what more the international community can do. On the migrant situation and those being granted refugee status, I will raise that with my Home Office colleagues.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Given the recent upgrade in diplomatic relations between the UK and Iran, will Yemen be the subject of discussions between the two countries?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend raises a very important point—the responsible role that Iran can and should take given where it is now in relation to the nuclear deal. If it wants to play a helpful role on the international stage in the region, then it needs to check its proxy influence in places such as Bahrain, Yemen and Damascus, and indeed in Baghdad as well.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Only last month, Oxfam claimed that the UK Government had switched from being an enthusiastic backer of the arms trade treaty to one of the most significant violators. The Government have lost immense credibility over this saga, and that was not helped by last-minute retractions. Do they not accept that if they echoed calls for an international independent inquiry, the added transparency and accountability would be a benefit to all stakeholders involved?
Mr Ellwood
I do not agree with the first part of the hon. Lady’s question, as she might guess, but the second part I do agree with. The process that we must follow is to allow and encourage Saudi Arabia to make sure that it does the necessary investigations, as it is now starting to do. If we find that those investigations are wanting, it is absolutely right that we should then call for an independent international investigation to be carried out.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Of course Iran has equal responsibility under international humanitarian law, as well as Saudi Arabia. The Minister, as the surviving Minister in the Foreign Office, will know that several months ago, when it was revealed that the UK was supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia for the Yemen campaign, the justification for the Government’s position was that those weapons were accurate and needed by Saudi Arabia, and that the technical targeting assistance was being provided by the British to make sure that those accurate weapons were even more accurate. Given that that is the case, why have so many weapons gone astray?
Mr Ellwood
We have a very robust relationship with Saudi Arabia. We are able to raise matters in confidence and in private that we would not be able to raise in public, and that applies to many of the issues that have been raised today. However, this is a legitimate coalition, and it is allowed to use weapons that are provided and sold by the United Kingdom.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
One of the accusations against the Saudis is that UK-made cluster munitions have been used in Yemen. The former procurement Minister, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), told the House before the recess that the last time the UK sold cluster munitions was 30 years ago. What assessment has the Minister or the MOD made of the usability of those weapons and whether they have ever actually been used?
Mr Ellwood
I recognise the interest and also the expertise that the hon. Gentleman brings to the House given his work as a Minister in the MOD. As a reservist and an ex-member of the regular forces, I would not go anywhere near any ordnance that was over 20 years old. The cluster munitions that are being discussed are well past their sell-by date. They are dangerous and should not be used by anybody.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I welcome the efforts that my hon. Friend’s Department has made in helping the Saudis with their application of international humanitarian law in the Yemeni armed conflict. Has he used any of our wonderful British imams who have served in the armed forces of the United Kingdom, many of whom have studied the sayings of Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, who set out many of the rules of war that would apply very well in these circumstances, to remind the Saudis that these are not western concepts at all but actually Islamic themes?
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend touches on quite a deep issue that reflects his knowledge and expertise in this area, to which I pay tribute. I spent some of the summer reading the works of Gertrude Bell, which I know he has studied. She illustrates, and learned over a long period, the complexity that we are dealing with in today’s Saudi Arabia. We have to understand and recognise that it is a conservative society which is being obliged and encouraged to move at a far faster pace than many other countries in the world, not least in the legitimacy of running a complex and sustained campaign of war.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The key test for the UK Government’s continued arms exports to Saudi Arabia in relation to international humanitarian law is whether there is a clear risk that those weapons might be used in the commission of a serious violation of that law. If the Government do not consider the repeated bombing of hospitals, schools and markets, and the designation of whole cities such as Ma’aran as war zones, a serious violation of humanitarian law, what does fall into that category?
Mr Ellwood
The right hon. Gentleman raises a number of events that have taken place and are being looked into by Saudi Arabia, but there is also a comparison with what happened with the United States, when a hospital was also attacked. The question is whether any nation puts its hand up and says that a mistake has been made or whether it tries to cover things up and say that they did not happen, which would be a breach of international humanitarian law.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
These were not minor corrections issued on 21 July; frankly, the Government are now saying the complete opposite of what they said before. I am reminded of Ron Ziegler, President Nixon’s former press secretary, who said that all previous statements were inoperative. It is not just that the Government said that there was no evidence that IHL had been breached and are now saying that they are unable to assess whether there have been breaches. They also said that the MOD was of the opinion that the Saudis were not targeting civilians; now they say that the MOD has not assessed whether the Saudis are targeting civilians. This is a deeply serious matter. The Government must take action and we now want answers to these questions. Are the Saudis actually targeting civilians, yes or no? The Minister must come back to the House and give answers on these serious matters.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes his point, but I will just say that each case is considered in its own right. Each arms export is considered under the ruthless criteria under which we operate. We look to the future, to the intent of that country and at how those weapon systems will be used. As things stand, we do not believe that they will be used in breach of IHL.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is rare that I agree with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), but communications from Ministers and the Government on this issue have been positively Kafkaesque to say the least. The lack of clarity in the information given in answers and to Committees of this House is not acceptable. Let us get back to the facts, Mr Speaker. Saudi Arabia admitted on 4 August that it had mistakenly bombed a residential complex, a World Food Programme convoy and medical facilities, never mind the other examples that have been raised by non-governmental organisations and other humanitarian organisations. Is the Minister satisfied with that? If he is not, will he suspend those arms sales?
Mr Ellwood
Thousands of sorties have been made not just by Saudi Arabia but by the entire coalition. Errors have been made as well. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s opening statement, which implied that I have either misled or not been up front about what is going on. I have been very clear indeed. If he wants to talk about the specific issues that he has raised today, I am more than happy to meet him outside the Chamber and we can look into them. I have encouraged Saudi Arabia to look into every one of those cases and provide a report.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that sometimes with situations in the middle east we must be careful what we wish for because of what might come in its place. Does he agree that Saudi Arabia could do a lot to reinforce people’s confidence in its operations by joining the international ban on cluster munitions, to which we are already party?
Mr Ellwood
That is absolutely right. I know that there is an intention among the establishment in Saudi Arabia to move forward in that regard, but as I have touched on in the past, this is a conservative society led by a liberal wing of that society. It needs to move at a pace that is workable for Saudi Arabia, and a major step forward would be the consideration of signing the cluster weapons convention.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is clear that the situation in Yemen is not improving and respected organisations are calling for independent investigation of violations of international humanitarian law, yet in the second quarter of 2016 this Government, and the Minister’s colleagues in the Home Office, refused 13 asylum applications, and 57 applications from Yemeni citizens remain pending. Will the Minister speak with his colleagues in the Home Office and impress on them the need for certainty for those Yemeni citizens that they will not be removed to a country that is a war zone because of bombs that we are selling to the Saudis?
Mr Ellwood
Just to clarify, am I right in thinking that the hon. Lady expects Yemenis based in the UK to be returned to Yemen?
Mr Ellwood
I will raise that. This question has already been raised by a Labour Member and I will look at it again, but my understanding is that nobody is being returned to a war zone.
Mr Speaker
I would just make the point that it is not uncommon for the same point to be raised more than once in the course of an interrogation of a Minister, a fact with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is intensely familiar.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Will the Minister reassure the House that the conflict in Yemen and accusations of breaches of international humanitarian law are taken into consideration when looking at extending arms exports?
Mr Ellwood
The answer to that is yes—that is absolutely the case. We have now moved forward in our discussions. The Houthis, after walking out of the discussions in Kuwait, are now working with the UN envoy, and I hope that we will be able to move forward from the phase of war and armed conflict to one of political resolution.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Minister please tell the House, very simply, whether any weapons or planes manufactured in the United Kingdom have been used in the conflict in Yemen and, in particular, whether they have been used against civilians?
Mr Ellwood
I cannot answer the latter part of that question but I can say that, yes, we have sold weapons and aircraft systems to Saudi Arabia and other members of the coalition which have been used legitimately, following a request by President Hadi under resolution 2216.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that Britain’s international aid commitment to Yemen more than doubled this year to £85 million, making us the fourth largest donor in the world? What steps has he taken to ensure further unhindered access of that humanitarian aid to the places that need it most?
Mr Ellwood
I can confirm that we are the fourth largest donor. My hon. Friend is right to say that the figure is £85 million and, looking at my Department for International Development colleagues, I hope we will be able to increase it. I know that every effort will be made at the UN General Assembly in the coming weeks to rally other countries to provide more financial support and to make sure that it reaches those people who genuinely require it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Will the Minister outline what procedures are in place for the sharing of United Kingdom intelligence with Gulf states? What assurances can he give the House that none of that intelligence is being used to support the airstrikes in Yemen?
Mr Ellwood
I cannot comment, for the obvious reason that we do not discuss intelligence matters at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that what he is saying is that he has no evidence whatsoever that Saudi Arabia has been involved in any human rights violations? If there were such evidence, would he suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia?
Mr Ellwood
It is not in my gift to make that judgment—the Foreign Office can only make recommendations—but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, if we were to find breaches of international humanitarian law, that would change our view of whether future arms exports should take place.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
The Saudi Government have been trusted with the oversight of weapons licensed by the UK Government and used in Yemen, with disastrous consequences. Does the Minister consider that to be misjudgment? Should not oversight be more independent, and should not an independent inquiry begin now, without delay?
Mr Ellwood
I think that Saudi Arabia has been slow in acknowledging international scrutiny of the various weapons systems that have been used in the conflict itself. Having said that, we are seeing an advancement in its processes, and it is those processes that we must now lean on to make sure that Saudi Arabia puts its hand up if there is a mistake and any collateral damage.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The Minister has said that the Government are unable to draw conclusions about individual allegations of human rights breaches, but will he comment on how the overall risk assessment has changed in the light of the reported breaches, and how worried is he that weapons manufactured here in the UK have been involved?
Mr Ellwood
We look to the future to see the intent of the country and how the weapons might be used, and whether there is transparency on misuse and collateral damage. That is why we lean on the Saudi Arabians and encourage them to produce the necessary reports that provide the light for which the NGOs, we and, indeed, other members of the international community are looking.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
In answer to my question on 2 February regarding violations of international humanitarian law, the Minister said that the Government were aware of such reports and that they would
“continue to monitor the situation closely”.
In the intervening seven months, what further information has been gleaned by the Government? Exactly what has to happen in Yemen before this Government recognise a breach of international humanitarian law and stop arming Saudi Arabia?
Mr Ellwood
I am not familiar with the exact reports that the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I would be happy to speak to him in more detail. If he is referring to the report by the UN committee of experts, in which I think more than 100 allegations were made, that UN team did not actually set foot in Yemen when they compiled that evidence. Having said that, we passed that on to the Saudi Arabians for them to comment on what had happened.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister has said that Saudi Arabia, in the first instance, should be allowed to investigate any breaches of international humanitarian law, but with both the Saudi joint incidents assessment team and the Yemeni national commission of inquiry failing to carry out proper investigations, does he not think that it is time to press for a full independent investigation into what has gone on?
Mr Ellwood
Those two organisations do slightly separate work. What we expect from the Saudi Arabians—they acknowledge that they have been slow to put the processes in place—is that they investigate any alleged violations and provide a full report. The Yemeni investigation team is looking at human rights violations on the ground that have been conducted under the fog of war—the use of child soldiers, for example—which is quite a separate matter.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Why did we have to wait until the very last day before the recess for the corrections to the parliamentary record to be produced? Why could that not have happened the day before, so that the Minister could have taken oral questions the next day? We have had to wait all summer long, and we have finally had a question session but we still have no answers. I would have thought that the Government had had time enough to be able to answer some of the questions raised by hon. Members today.
Mr Ellwood
There were answers. As soon as I found out about the matter, I wrote to the necessary Committee Chairs. If there had been an opportunity before we broke up for the recess, I certainly would have taken it. If it is any consolation, I apologise to the House for not coming to this place earlier to put that on the record. I make that very clear indeed.
Exiting the European Union
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
I thought it would be useful for the House to be brought up to date on the working of my Department after the referendum of 23 June. Our instructions from the British people are clear. Britain is leaving the European Union. The mandate for that course is overwhelming. The referendum of 23 June delivered a bigger vote for Brexit than that won by any UK Government in history. It is a national mandate, and this Government are determined to deliver it in the national interest.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that there will be no attempt to stay in the EU by the back door; no attempt to delay, frustrate or thwart the will of the British people; and no attempt to engineer a second referendum because some people did not like the first answer. The people have spoken in a referendum offered to them by this Government and confirmed by Parliament —by all of us, on both sides of the argument—and we must all respect it. That is a simple matter of democratic politics.
Naturally, people want to know what Brexit will mean. Simply, it means leaving the European Union, so we will decide on our borders, our laws and the taxpayer’s money. It means getting the best deal for Britain: one that is unique to Britain and not an off-the-shelf solution. This must mean controls on the numbers of people who come to Britain from Europe, but also a positive outcome for those who wish to trade in goods and services. This is an historic and positive moment for our nation. Brexit is not about making the best of a bad job; it is about seizing a huge and exciting opportunity that will flow from a new place for Britain in the world. There will be new freedoms, new opportunities and new horizons for our country. We can get the right trade policy for the UK. We can create a more dynamic economy, a beacon for free trade across the world. We want to make sure our regulatory environment helps, rather than hinders, businesses and workers. We can create an immigration system that allows us to control numbers and encourage the brightest and best to come to this country.
I want to be clear to our European friends and allies that we do not see Brexit as ending our relationship with Europe; it is about starting a new one. We want to maintain or even strengthen our co-operation on security and defence. It is in the interests of both the UK and the European Union that we have the freest possible trading relationship. We want a strong European Union, succeeding economically and politically, working with Britain in many areas of common interest, so we should all approach the negotiations to come about our exit with a sense of mutual respect and co-operation.
I know the House will want to be updated about the work of the Department. It is a privilege to have been asked to lead it by the Prime Minister. The challenge we face is exciting and considerable. It will require significant expertise and a consistent approach. Negotiating with the EU has to be got right, and we are going to take the time to get it right. We will strive to build national consensus around our approach.
We start from a position of economic strength. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, there will be challenges ahead, but our economy is robust, thanks in no small part to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). The latest data suggest our manufacturing and service industries and consumer confidence are all strong, contrary to some of the earlier predictions. Businesses are putting their faith and their money into this country. Over the summer, SoftBank, GlaxoSmithKline and Siemens all confirmed that they will make major investments in the UK. Countries, including Australia, have already made clear their desire to proceed quickly with a new trade deal for the UK. As other nations see advantages to them, I am confident that they will want to prioritise deals with the UK, too. But we are not complacent. Our task is to build on this success and strength and to negotiate a deal for exiting the European Union that is in the interests of the entire nation.
As I have already indicated, securing a deal that is in our national interest does not and must not mean turning our back on Europe. To do so would not be in our interests, nor Europe’s, so we will work hard to help to establish a future relationship between the EU and the UK that is dynamic, constructive and healthy. We want a steadfast and successful European Union after we depart.
As we proceed, we will be guided by some clear principles. First, as I have said, we wish to build national consensus around our position. Secondly, we will always put the national interest first. We will always act in good faith towards our European partners. Thirdly, wherever possible, we will try to minimise any uncertainty that change will inevitably bring. Fourthly, and crucially, by the end of this process we will have left the European Union and put the sovereignty and supremacy of this Parliament beyond doubt.
The first formal step in the process of leaving the European Union is to invoke article 50, which will start two years of negotiations. Let me briefly update the House on how the machinery of government will support our efforts and on the next steps we will take. First, on responsibilities, the Prime Minister will lead the UK’s exit negotiations and be supported on a day-to-day basis by my Department. We will work closely with all Government Departments to develop our objectives and to negotiate new relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Supporting me is a first-class ministerial team and some of the brightest and best in Whitehall, who want to engage in this national endeavour. The Department now has over 180 staff in London, plus the expertise of over 120 officials in Brussels. We are still growing rapidly, with first-class support from other Departments.
As to the next steps, the Department’s task is clear. We are undertaking two broad areas of work. First, given that we are determined to build national consensus, we will listen and talk to as many organisations, companies and institutions as possible—from large plcs to small businesses, and from the devolved Administrations to councils, local government associations and major metropolitan bodies.
We are already fully engaged with the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure a UK-wide approach to our negotiations. The Prime Minister met the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland in July. Last week, I visited Northern Ireland for meetings with its political leaders, where I reiterated our determination that there will be no return to the hard borders of the past. I will visit Scotland and Wales soon.
My ministerial colleagues and I have also discussed the next steps with a range of organisations. My first meeting was with the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, followed by key business groups, representatives of the universities and the charitable sector, and farming and fisheries organisations. But that is just the start. In the weeks ahead, we will speak to as many other firms, organisations and bodies as possible—research institutes, regional and national groups, and businesses up and down the country—to establish their priorities and the opportunities for the whole of the UK. As part of that exercise I can announce that we will be holding roundtables with stakeholders in a series of sectors, to ensure that all views are reflected in our analysis of the options for the UK. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman resume his seat for just a moment? There is quite a lot of unseemly and, dare I say it, somewhat unstatesmanlike noise from a sedentary position. Someone was muttering, “Too long!” It is not too long at all. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order. Let me remind the House that it has always been my practice to facilitate the fullest and most extensive interrogation of the relevant Minister, and that will happen today. Everyone will have his or her opportunity. But it would be a good thing if people would listen respectfully. If they can manage a beaming countenance reminiscent of that of the Foreign Secretary that will be a bonus, but it is not obligatory.
Mr Davis
Those roundtables will include stakeholders from the broadcast, aviation, energy, financial services and automotive sectors, and others.
I will also engage with EU member states. I am beginning with a visit to Dublin this week. I am working particularly closely with the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Trade, who have been meeting counterparts in Washington, Brussels and Delhi, and in the capitals of other EU states. While we do that, my officials, supported by officials across Government, are carrying out programme of sectoral analysis and regulatory analysis, which will identify the key factors for some 50 sectors of British business. It is extremely important that the House understands that. We are building a detailed understanding of how the withdrawal from the EU will affect domestic policies, to seize opportunities and ensure a smooth process of exit.
The referendum result was a clear sign that the majority of the British people want to see Parliament’s sovereignty strengthened, and so throughout the process Parliament will be regularly informed, updated and engaged.
Finally, we are determined to ensure that people have as much stability and certainty as possible in the period leading up to our departure from the EU. Until we leave the European Union, we must respect the laws and the obligations that membership requires of us. We also want to ensure certainty when it comes to public funding. The Chancellor has confirmed that structural and investment fund projects signed before the autumn statement and research and innovation projects financed by the European Commission by money granted before we leave the EU will be underwritten by the Treasury after we leave. Agriculture is a vital part of the economy and the Government will match the current level of annual payments that the sector receives through the direct payments scheme until 2020, again providing certainty.
The Prime Minister has been clear that she is determined to protect the status of EU nationals already living in the UK. The only circumstances in which that would not be possible would be if the rights of British citizens in EU member states were not protected in return, something that I frankly find very hard to imagine.
I am confident that together we will be able to deliver on what the country asked us to do through the referendum. I am greatly encouraged by the national mood. Most of those I have met who wanted to remain have accepted the result and now want to make a success of the course Britain has chosen. Indeed, organisations and individuals I have met already who had backed the remain campaign now want to be engaged in the process of exit and in identifying the positive changes that will flow from it as well as the challenges. I want us all to come together as one nation to get the best deal for Britain.
In conclusion, we are confident of negotiating a new position that will mean this country flourishing outside the European Union while keeping EU members as friends, allies and trading partners. We leave the European Union but we will not—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is an aspiring statesman. His aspiration may be a little way from fulfilment. I want to hear the Secretary of State’s peroration.
Mr Davis
It is an aspiration of very long standing, Mr Speaker.
In conclusion, we are confident of negotiating a position that will mean this country flourishing outside the EU, keeping its members as our friends, our allies and our trading partners. We will leave the European Union but will not turn our back on Europe. We will embrace the opportunities and freedoms that will open up for Britain. We will deliver on the national mandate for Brexit, and we will deliver it in the national interest.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role. It is eight years since his last appearance at the Dispatch Box. Back then, I believe his last words were: “You have to answer.” Let us hope that he gives us some answers today.
I welcome the attitude he has expressed today that he will be talking and listening to everyone. May I give him some advice? Perhaps he should start by putting a telephone number on his website. It has been a little difficult tracking his Department down, so it would be nice if he could begin by giving that out later, along with some of the answers that we would expect. The spin before today’s statement was so much promise. We heard that we would hear what the Government’s strategy for Brexit is, but instead we have not heard a strategy or a thought-out plan. It has been more empty platitudes from a Government who continue to make it up as they go along.
Last night, the Prime Minister, who was on a plane, seemingly told us what she was not going to do—it seems that we will not have a points-based immigration system, any extra money for the NHS or a reduction in VAT on fuel—but we have not been told what the Government will do. When will they tell us how they will deliver, for example, free trade for British businesses while imposing immigration controls, let alone how they will address the red lines that Labour has demanded on the protection of workers’ rights and guarantees for EU citizens?
The Secretary of State says that he wants to present a positive vision of Britain post-Brexit, but unless he can tell us what deal the Government are working towards, how they plan to achieve it and whether other member states will accept it, his positive vision is just a pipe dream. It is just rhetoric.
May I remind the Secretary of State of what he said two months ago? He said:
“The negotiating strategy has to be properly designed, and there is some serious consultation to be done first…This is one of the reasons for taking a little time before triggering Article 50.”
We absolutely should take a little time before triggering article 50, but where is the negotiating strategy and what serious consultation has taken place with other member states? In the absence of either, why are the Government pushing ahead with article 50? What has happened since July? What is the plan?
May I remind the House what the Foreign Affairs Committee said in July about the previous Government? It said:
“The previous Government’s considered view not to instruct key Departments…to plan for the possibility”
of a leave vote “amounted to gross negligence.” What do we say about the current Government when, two months later, we are no further forward? Surely all we can say is this: when it comes to planning for Brexit, they have gone from gross negligence to rank incompetence. We see the warnings to Britain from Japan and others at the G20, and we see investment from companies like Nissan put under threat. It is British workers who will pay the price for the Government’s incompetence.
This morning, the Japanese ambassador, speaking on the “Today” programme, said something that was as honest as it was deadly. He said: “The problem that we see is not to have a very well thought through consideration before you start negotiation.” He is absolutely right. Are the Government rushing to start negotiation? Yes. Do they have a well thought-out plan for that negotiation? No.
The Secretary of State has won plaudits in the past for his principled stand on issues such as parliamentary sovereignty—indeed, he talked about the importance of parliamentary sovereignty today—democratic rights and the rule of law, so surely he cannot think it right that article 50 should be triggered by royal prerogative. As his friend and mine, the former Attorney General the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), said:
“The idea that a government could take a decision of such massive importance…without parliamentary approval seems to me to be extremely far-fetched.”
Well, I do not think it is far-fetched; I think it is just plain wrong. And I think that if the Secretary of State was still on the Back Benches, he would agree with me.
When there is no evidence of sound planning by the Government, no detail on the deal they want to strike, no strategy for achieving that deal or the reasons for pushing it through, Parliament must have more of a say. We must have more than simply a say: we must have a vote.
Mr Davis
I thank the hon. Lady for her welcome. As I suspect is very common when people enter the Cabinet, I have received a very large number of congratulatory emails and telegrams. The best one was the shortest. It said, “Many congratulations, I now believe in the resurrection.” Let me deal with the measures she has raised.
The hon. Lady and the Labour party accuse us of rank incompetence—the Labour party! The Prime Minister, on her trip to China, described her approach to complex problems—this is certainly a complex problem. Her approach is to collect the data, analyse it, make a judgment, make a decision and implement it. The Labour party clearly does it the other way around. The Americans have a phrase for the way the Labour party approaches these things—not looking at the problem, not looking at the issue, not looking at the data. They call it “load, fire, aim”. That may be very appropriate for the circular firing squad that is the Labour party, but it is not appropriate to running things in the national interest.
The hon. Lady mentioned the points-based immigration system. What the Prime Minister said in China was very clear. She wants a results-based immigration system that delivers an outcome the British people voted for. That is what she will be delivering at the end of this.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Japanese ambassador. From memory, the Japanese ambassador this morning said something to the effect that he had not met a company that did not think Britain was the best place in Europe to have its business—not one. He also said that he admired the Prime Minister’s approach to the negotiation. The hon. Lady should pick her quotes a little more carefully.
Let me come to the hon. Lady’s central point, if there was a point in what she had to say. She talked about article 50. Before we entered on to this course, the referendum Bill went through this House. It was voted for 6:1 in this House, and she voted for it. What did the Bill say? It was presented by the then Foreign Secretary, who said that we were giving the British people the right to make the decision—it was not advice or consultation. What she is trying to wrap up in a pseudo-democratic masquerade is the most anti-democratic proposal I have heard for some time. She wants to deny the will of the British people and up with that we will not put.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s return to the Front Bench. As someone who recently left it—voluntarily, I have to tell him—I unreservedly welcome him. I also welcome his incredibly optimistic tone on the whole idea of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and forging a new relationship with the rest of the world.
On the specifics of the statement—[Interruption.] The one specific is that we are leaving the European Union. On that specific, I wonder if I might press my right hon. Friend. In the media today, we have had a certain amount of speculation on the detail in terms of controlling our borders. Will he confirm that, in leaving the European Union, the No. 1 thing that is absolutely not negotiable is that the United Kingdom will take control of its borders and the laws relevant to that and that that is not negotiable in any other deal?
Mr Davis
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I would say two things. First, the referendum provided the biggest mandate ever given to a British Government, and the question of immigration clearly played a large part. Secondly, the Prime Minister has made it very plain that the current state of immigration cannot go on and that we will bring it to an end as part of this process.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position and congratulate him on it. I want to ask him, “Was that it?” The Secretary of State has had all summer, and it has to be said that it is a mark of an irresponsible Government, just as it was a mark of an irresponsible leave campaign, that we know nothing more about the phrase “Brexit means Brexit”. That creates huge levels of uncertainty for our universities and our research institutions, which need some certainty beyond 2020; For food and drink producers; and for EU nationals who have made this country their home and deserve much better. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give them, because he has given them precious little from his statement today?
The actions of this Government stand in stark contrast to those of the Scottish Government, who have reached out to EU nationals and set out a clear action, including setting up an expert group; who have provided £100 million- worth of economic stimulus, with more to come tomorrow and a programme for government. The Secretary of State was responsible for a leave campaign that had no plans—zero, zilch. That is in stark contrast to the 670-page White Paper that the Scottish Government produced ahead of the independence referendum. Does the right hon. Gentleman regret not having any more plans, especially now that the Prime Minister is slapping down some of the leave campaign’s ideas and the Foreign Secretary is referring to access to the single market? Does the Secretary of State regret that blank piece of paper?
Mr Davis
I am tempted to say “Is that it?” too. The simple truth is this. The hon. Gentleman talks about a 670-page White Paper for the Scottish independence referendum, which I remind him they lost—and they would still lose today. After the Brexit referendum, what did we see? Do the Scottish people want another referendum? No, they do not. Would they vote to leave? No, they would not. That is all I need to say to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I understand my right hon. Friend’s difficulties, and I congratulate him on not rushing anything. I encourage him and his colleagues to take as long as they possibly can to work out a policy. I look forward to hearing from him again when the Government have found something they can agree on that indicates what Brexit actually means. Meanwhile, on a more positive note, I do not recall my right hon. Friend taking part in any of the ill-informed and sometimes prejudiced attacks on immigrants and foreigners living and working in this country. Does he agree with me that, although some anti-foreigner rhetoric might have added a few votes that might have tilted the leave campaign into gaining a majority, the majority of the public are not hostile to other Europeans living and working in this country, so long as they respect our laws and our customs? Will he confirm that the Government will not needlessly sacrifice our access to a free market of 500 million people or our trade and economic co-operation with our European allies just to demonstrate that we are turning away from this country foreigners whom employers wish to employ to fill skills shortages or as a result of the unwillingness of English people to fill vacancies in various parts of our economy?
Mr Davis
My right hon. and learned Friend and I have debated this matter probably for nearly 30 years. Let me say this on the issue of anti-foreigner rhetoric. I agree entirely that the sort of unpleasantness that has sometimes arisen is to be wholly condemned—I repeat, wholly condemned. I certainly join my right hon. and learned Friend in condemning that rhetoric.
However, my right hon. and learned Friend then moved on to the issue of immigration. I do not think that when people are concerned about immigration, it is necessarily xenophobia. Economic, social and other pressures lead to people’s concern about the issue. Nor do I think that it is a simple trade-off. I do not think that an immigration control system that suits our country is necessarily one that will preclude a good trade relationship with the European Union. Trade relationships are beneficial to both sides, and we should not need to make a policy purchase in order to secure such a relationship. So, while I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend’s original proposal, I do not agree with his conclusion.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State will know, the business of his Department will be the most important issue that has faced our country for decades, and it is hugely important that we secure the best deal for Britain outside the European Union. No one expects him to have worked out all the answers yet, but we do expect him to be able to set out the outline of some kind of plan, and today we have heard nothing of that sort.
Let me ask the Secretary of State just one specific question. Has his Department even considered what the home affairs issues will be in the negotiations, and has he decided whether or not Britain will be staying in Europol? That decision will have to be made this year, not in many years to come. Has he decided whether we will be in Europol, yes or no?
Mr Davis
The right hon. Lady was an eminent member of the Cabinet, and, indeed, an eminent Front-Bench Member and shadow Home Secretary. I therefore take her question extremely seriously, as she does this issue. The simple answer is that the whole justice and home affairs stream is being assessed even as we speak, and the aim is to preserve the relationship with the European Union on security matters as best we can. The right hon. Lady will recall that last year a decision was made which laid aside about 100 measures that we did not want to be part of, but kept some others, including the European arrest warrant and one or two others—controversially, as she will remember. So yes, of course we are across that, and of course we are aiming to maintain it. That is the answer.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his return to the Government Front Bench after an unfortunate hiatus of some 20 years. Is it not absolutely clear that he has both the skills and the experience that are required for the extremely difficult job that lies ahead? Surely the whole House will wish him every success as he charts those extremely difficult shoals.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
We learned more of substance from the Prime Minister’s briefing of journalists in China than we heard in those 15 minutes of talk about stakeholders and round tables. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that the points-based immigration system, the cut in VAT on fuel, and the £350 million extra every week for the NHS—the three main promises of the leave campaign—now lie in tatters?
Mr Davis
The task of my Department is to deliver on three things. The British people, in the referendum, voted for the return to Parliament of control of our laws, control of our money, and control of our borders, and that is what my Department will bring about. What happens then is down to the Government and Parliament.
Let me deal with just one issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised: the points-based immigration system. What the Prime Minister said in China was very clear. Her concern was that a points-based system was too open-ended and did not actually control the number of people coming to the United Kingdom, and she therefore wanted something that sounded as if it would be more rigorous, not less.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As 47 countries have free trade agreements with the EU without accepting any EU control over migration in their countries or making any contributions to the EU, will my right hon. Friend confirm that taking back control cannot be negotiated with the French, the Germans and the others: we take back control of those matters and we negotiate, if they wish, over trade? Will he further confirm that the French and German Governments have indicated not at all that they wish to impose any tariffs on their very profitable trade with us, because they do not believe in self-harm?
Mr Davis
That last point goes to the heart of the question. Free trade is not something that is a gift from one country to another; it is something that is mutually beneficial. I fully expect that when we come to do our negotiations with the EU we will see it recognising that France, Germany—in fact, every single country—has a manufacturing surplus delivered to us, whereas we, typically, have a service surplus the other way. I expect that we will both gain from the free trade agreement that comes out of that negotiation.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. I also welcome today’s statement and the visit he made recently to Northern Ireland, when he met the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and others. Can he reassure us that, as we seek to move forward and make a success of Brexit for the whole of the United Kingdom, which is what the British people in their entirety have voted for—all parts of it—[Interruption.] As a result of this national vote—all members of the United Kingdom had an equal vote and voted overwhelmingly to come out of the European Union—can the Secretary of State make it clear that he will work closely with Ministers in Northern Ireland? Will he also make it clear that that work will not just be at ministerial level, but that officials in his Department will work very closely with officials in the Executive Office, the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department for the Economy and others, to ensure we make a success of this project?
Mr Davis
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that that is already happening. Officials in my Department and other Whitehall Departments are working with officials in the Northern Ireland Office to proceed on what will actually be one of the more difficult elements of the negotiation, because we do have to deal with the issue of the border, keeping it open and not returning to the recent past. I also agree in some depth with his statement that this is a national decision—that the whole British nation, the whole United Kingdom nation, has decided on this. Whilst we will seek—I look at the Scottish nationalist Benches when I am saying this—to meet and protect the interests of every part of the UK, that does not mean any part of it will have a veto on this, least of all for partisan reasons.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his responsibilities and further welcome his agreement to appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee next week in order to provide further follow-up to this statement. Does he share my assessment that there is a key foreign affairs, security and defence interest for our 27 EU partners in finding continuing engagement with the UK after Brexit?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee is right, and this is fundamental to one of the points I was making in my earlier remarks. There are very strong security, foreign affairs, foreign policy and environmental relationships, and a whole series of other relationships, that will continue to apply long after we have left the EU, to the benefit of both the EU and the UK.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his new position and I know that millions of Labour voters and supporters across the country who voted to leave will be pleased that there is someone in this position who genuinely wants to get out of the EU. Will he confirm that there is a real difference between wanting to be members of the single market and wanting to have access to the single market, and that some of the remainers should learn that?
Mr Davis
The hon. Lady is right, and of course access to the single market is not really up for grabs; it is there for everybody and, frankly, there are many countries outside the EU that do a better job of exporting to the single market than we do, even without a trade arrangement. So of course we want to have access to the single market and we do not need to be a member of it to do that. Indeed being a member of it is what has caused some of the problems of sovereignty that drove this referendum.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his appointment. Will he confirm that the vote to leave requires the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and will the Government bring in a Bill to achieve that as soon as is reasonably possible?
Mr Davis
The aspects of the European Communities Act 1972 that are required to be repealed and the aspects of the acquis communautaire that need to be carried into British law are an important joint set of issues that have to be decided. Once we have got to the point of deciding what we need to do in that regard, we will come back to the House at the first possible opportunity.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
But do we not need more specifics from the Secretary of State? For example, do we not need to know that we can build new relationships without having to wait until the divorce proceedings have finished? Jean-Claude Juncker said this weekend that he did not like the idea of our negotiating trade arrangements, but would it not leave us in limbo if we could not do so? It is essential that we have the ability to get on with building these new relationships now. That means dealing with the Brexit issue while at the same time, in parallel, ensuring that we can forge those new relationships. Those two things have to happen together, not one after the other. How is the Secretary of State going to achieve that?
Mr Davis
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Indeed, the suggestion from the Commission that it is somehow illegal for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade to go and talk to Ministers in India, Canada, Australia or wherever he is going next is somewhat ridiculous. The only thing the Commission can say in legal terms is that we cannot bring an agreement into force until after we leave, and that is perfectly fair and proper. That is what the laws of the European Union are. The hon. Gentleman can take it as read that we are looking to ensure the fastest possible transition to the opportunities I mentioned after Brexit concludes. Similarly, on the other front, there have been suggestions that we cannot talk about the trade arrangement with Europe until the article 50 process has concluded and we are outside the European Union. That, too, is nonsense. I have looked carefully at several different versions of article 50 in different languages, and they all refer to the parallel negotiations that will need to take place, so the hon. Gentleman can take it as read on both those counts that he is right and that we are pursuing the matter.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment and wish him well in his historic task. Many industries and everyday activities depend on European regulation, but there is some uncertainty being stirred up about the future of the law. Further to his reply to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), can he confirm that the Government are going about establishing the entire corpus of European law and all the detail of the acquis communautaire, following the path set by countries such as India and Australia when they took on full independence and converted the whole of British law into their national law and then, in subsequent years, repealed, filleted or improved upon it?
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. This is one of the reasons that the process is taking some time. The legal interactions of certain elements of the acquis communautaire and British law are not straightforward. My starting position was that we would put them all into the law and take it from there, but it does not quite work like that. That is why this is taking a little while, but my right hon. Friend can be sure that my legal section and the Whitehall lawyers are on that issue as we speak and will come up with conclusions as quickly as they can. When they do so, I will tell the House what their conclusion is.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Scottish fishing communities were due to receive more than €100 million of European maritime and fisheries fund support between now and 2023. The Secretary of State has committed to supporting our agricultural communities by guaranteeing that CAP funding will be matched until 2020. Will he make a similar commitment today to our fishing communities to honour the maritime and fisheries funding that has been allocated in the current round?
Mr Davis
Sadly, I did not make that commitment. The Chancellor made the commitment and—[Interruption.] With great respect, it is not for me to make commitments on behalf of the Treasury. We will place in the Library a copy of the letter in which the Chancellor laid out the underpinning of the CAP, structural and science funds and so on. He made it clear that that was effectively his decision until the autumn statement. I will report to him what the hon. Lady said so that he is at least aware of her concerns before that statement.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
A legitimate concern of many remain voters, and one which many of us on the leave side can well understand, is that an unduly long period of uncertainty while negotiations are ongoing would be damaging to the British economy. Will my right hon. Friend therefore confirm that it will be his priority to complete the process as soon as possible, that the two-year limit set down in article 50 is an arbitrary maximum, not a necessary minimum, and that most countries that have obtained independence or left a political union—India, Canada and Australia or the Czech Republic and Slovakia—have done so in far less than two years?
Mr Davis
I defer to my right hon. Friend’s knowledge of the history of those other countries. The Prime Minister has said that we will not trigger article 50 until the new year. The reason is not unnecessary delay or the wasting of time; it is to ensure that we get all the decisions absolutely right. Mr right hon. Friend has heard over the past few minutes about some of the complexities involved in the acquis communautaire alone. We will trigger article 50 as soon as is reasonably possible. I would rather be a month late and get it right than be a month early and get it wrong. We will do it as expeditiously as possible. The Prime Minister has said clearly that she thinks the British people expect us to get on with it.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Unravelling 40 years of close co-operation within the European Union with now 27 nation states is, as the right hon. Gentleman is learning if he did not know before, a complex issue. Does he intend to give the House some ongoing view of how that is going? Will he provide some assurance on issues such as workers’ rights? Will we keep the principle of equal pay for work of equal value? Will the EU laws that guarantee our pension payments as though they are deferred wages still be recognised by this House?
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the sovereignty of Parliament. Will he give this Parliament more of a say on the deal that is done? Do his Government intend to give the British people a say on the deal when it is finally done?
Mr Davis
I will start by saying that we got our instructions from the British people to do this in the first place, but the hon. Lady raises some serious issues. My views on the importance of parliamentary accountability have not changed just because I have moved forward four Benches. I still believe that we should be as open with Parliament as possible while in negotiations. For example, I am appearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee in a week or two’s time, which is an undertaking that I made some time ago, and I am doing the same with the relevant House of Lords Committee.
As for employment rights, a large component of the people who voted to leave the European Union could be characterised as the British industrial working class. It is no part of my brief to undermine their rights—full stop.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his new role. He is absolutely right that we must respect the result of 23 June and that people want further controls on immigration and do not have confidence in our previous immigration policy. I do not know whether it was deliberate, but two words seemed to be missing from his statement: single market. The heart of the matter, about which we will be arguing over the coming months and years, is the balance between access to the single market and the freedom of people to come to this country. When will the Government set out their view on that fundamental point?
Mr Davis
I am afraid that I start from a disagreement with my right hon. Friend; the simple truth is that, as I said earlier, the negotiation over free trade with the European Union will be to the benefit of both sides—it will be beneficial to us and to the European countries. The question of immigration and the control of immigration is a very high priority for this Government, as the Prime Minister has made plain on many occasions. I do not agree with the fundamental tenet of my right hon. Friend’s question; I do not think that that is a natural, necessary trade-off. The negotiation has to be very much about what is to the mutual benefit of this country and the European Union—full stop.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Forty-five Japanese companies operate in Wales, supporting some 6,000 jobs, mainly in tech and manufacturing. Manufacturing alone is worth £9 billion to the Welsh economy. What assurances can the Secretary of State give those workers and those companies that Wales-Japan relations and the Welsh economy will not be harmed by Brexit?
Mr Davis
It is the same assurance I give to all manufacturing operations in the United Kingdom: the aim of this negotiation is to deliver the best trade opportunity that we can. That includes getting the best arrangement with the European market and exploiting the best arrangements with other, non-European markets. I will make a point to the hon. Gentleman on manufacturing alone: the quantity of exports we make to the European Union is exceeded by the exports we make to those countries with which we have no free trade agreement at all. Once we get a free trade agreement, or many free trade agreements, as the Secretary of State for International Trade will do—I shall not steal his thunder—we will not see downsides; we will see opportunities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his long overdue return to ministerial office. In the seven short weeks he has been in office, alongside our new Foreign Secretary and our new Secretary of State for International Trade, we have seen a record increase in service industries growth, a record increase in manufacturing industry growth and a 3.3% increase in motor car sales. We have also seen the Speaker of the US Congress, the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of New Zealand all pressing for free trade deals with this country, while the Deputy Chancellor of Germany has acknowledged that the EU-US trade deal is dead in the water. Does that not confirm that the 17 million people in this country who voted to leave the European Union know a darned sight more about economics than the members of the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and all these other soi-disant “experts” who have oeuf on their face?
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is not known for understating his case, but I would point out that it was 17.5 million people who made that judgment. He is right: much of the gloom and doom and fearmongering that went on before the referendum has been proven to be wrong. That said, I would not be quite so unalloyed in my optimism as he is, because of course we are in a world where there are a lot of economic pressures. That is why the meetings in China are taking place now. He makes his point brilliantly, as always, and I agree with its main thrust, but let us not get too optimistic before we close the deal.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State said that he wants to have the supremacy of this Parliament. If we are a sovereign, supreme Parliament, why is this Parliament not going to have the decision as to when we trigger article 50?
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his complete and abysmal failure over a 10-year period to avoid high office? It is a great pleasure to see him in his place. May I also reassure him that as somebody who supported the remain campaign, I see it as my absolute duty to support the Government in giving effect to the public desire to leave the European Union, including supporting the Government in their implementation of article 50? He rightly pointed out that the matter is legally extremely complex. It also concerns, as he rightly said, the acquis communautaire, which is about the conferring of private legal rights on individuals in this country which have the force of statute. I have to say to my right hon. Friend that the idea that those should simply be revoked by our exit without parliamentary approval troubles me very much and appears to me to be an abdication of the responsibility of this House. I accept that in many cases they have been created by Henry VIII clauses, which was the unsatisfactory nature of the EU, but what we will now do if we cannot scrutinise them before article 50 is invoked is allow the Government to dispose of private property rights, including intellectual property as an example, by decree. That troubles me very much, and I ask him to use his ingenuity to find ways of resolving this particular dilemma.
Mr Davis
It is a pleasure to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend and long-term friend, but he is over-interpreting what I have said, I think. Article 50 is the beginning of this process; it is not the end. I know there will be many opportunities for this House to scrutinise what we are about to do after article 50 takes place, but it would be somewhat futile to do so before we start the negotiations, as some of those negotiations will have a direct impact on the very rights that he is talking about. He can take it from me that I did not spend all those years on the Back Benches defending those rights to give them up now.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a good idea to try to find some way of maintaining a form of co-operation on foreign policy after we leave the European Union, because even after exit we will still very much be part of Europe, and there are a great number of challenges around the world on which we will have to continue to work with our European neighbours?
Mr Davis
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The tradition of this country in maintaining strong effective alliances generally for good in the world at large is one that I fully expect will continue. Indeed, one aspect of the picture of the future that I see is that Britain will continue to be a good global citizen, as it always has been. Co-operation on foreign policy is very much a part of that.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend; it is good to see him back in his natural habitat at the Dispatch Box. Businesses in the UK are concerned not just about access to the single market, but about other matters. A unitary patent and the proposed new Unified Patent Court has been eagerly anticipated by businesses, which currently have to file for separate patents in separate countries at great cost. The UK was due to ratify that later this year alongside Germany and one other country. Will my right hon. Friend give businesses the undertaking that the UK will ratify this agreement before the end of this year and that we will continue to play a full part so that British businesses benefit from being able to be part of a larger unified patent authority?
Mr Speaker
May I gently ask the Secretary of State to face the House? Sometimes his answers are not fully heard. They are heard by the person at whom he is looking, but not by the House.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
May I congratulate the Secretary of State on his return to the Front Bench and, on behalf of all those Labour constituencies that voted to leave, thank him for his statement and for making the control of our borders the cornerstone of any renegotiation? May I take him back to the question from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)? Given Europe’s huge trade surplus with us, how does the Secretary of State think that power position will play out when we are talking about membership of or access to the single market?
Mr Davis
It is early days to forecast the negotiation, but the right hon. Gentleman is right—there is a large trade surplus. The one that was cited time and again during the referendum campaign, which I do not want to revisit, was the surplus in cars from Germany alone, for example. With countries of the European Union facing economic difficulties, I do not think they will want to create problems for themselves by creating bilateral arrangements that hurt them, so the way I think it will play out is that over the period concerned—probably a couple of years or so—people will start to focus on what their own national interest is. My experience of the European Union is that the Commission makes a great deal of public statements, but at the end of the day the national interest of individual countries decides the outcome.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm that as the UK will want to be able to negotiate new trade deals with the rest of the world and has created a Department for that very purpose, it will not be able to remain a member of the customs union?
Mr Davis
I am pleased to be asked a question by my right hon. Friend. I spent the weekend reading his draft for Open Europe. I did not agree with everything in it, but, as always with him, what he has to say was insightful and wise. I recommend that people read pages 10, 11 and 12 if they do not have a lot of time.
My right hon. Friend has a good point on the customs union. Membership of a customs union puts restrictions of varying degrees on what countries can do outside. It would put restrictions on what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is doing, so we have to look at the matter carefully. There is a range of different types of customs union, but that is exactly the sort of decision that we will resolve before we trigger article 50.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Last week the Secretary of State visited Northern Ireland, where he met political and business leaders, and this week he will visit Dublin. Although it is true that the desire for a continued open border in Ireland is shared by many, does he recognise that maintaining an open border in Ireland will require agreements between Dublin, London, Belfast and Brussels? What steps has he taken to ensure that such an agreement will be possible?
Mr Davis
It will primarily require an agreement between London, Belfast and Dublin. Brussels will have a say in some respects, but it is down to us. When I was in Northern Ireland last week, everybody was absolutely clear—all sides, with no political divide and no division of any sort—on the need for an open border and the need to avoid a return to the days of the hard border. There are other open borders, which we will be studying. One of them is Norway/Sweden, but it is not identical. Of course, there was an open border before either of us was a member of the European Union, and we had the common travel area before we were members of the European Union, so there are ways to deal with the issue. Some of them may be technological and some may be political. We and, I think, the Irish Government and all the political parties in Belfast are committed to making sure that it happens.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his place on the Front Bench, and I, too, accept the verdict of the British people—some 52% of whom voted for us to leave the European Union. Yesterday the Japanese Government produced a 15-page document, very unusually, being very bold about their assessment of the grave dangers, as they see it, of Brexit. They laid it out in some detail. Of course, there are many who would argue that if we retain our membership of the single market, we can allay their fears, especially in relation to the financial services sector and the automotive sector. With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I think we need some clarity now about where we see our membership of the single market. Is he saying that this Government are prepared to abandon that membership of the single market?
Mr Davis
I am saying that this Government are looking at every option, but the simple truth is that if a requirement of membership is giving up control of our borders, then I think that makes that very improbable. What we are looking for, in the words of the Prime Minister, is a “unique solution” that matches the fact that we are one of the largest trading countries in the world, and also a very large market for very large parts of very important industries in the European Union. I find it very difficult to believe that over the course of the next couple of years or so we will not be able to find an outcome that satisfies not just our own industries but those sponsored by Japan as well.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
A significant reason why my constituency voted to leave was immigration and free movement of labour, so may I ask the Secretary of State whether, at the end of this process, under no circumstances will free movement of labour be allowed? He said that the Government will bring the current rate of immigration to an end. What does that mean?
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
My constituency voted more decisively than the country for Brexit, so my constituents will welcome the Prime Minister’s and the Secretary of State’s clear view that we are going to leave and do so decisively. However, businesses in my constituency will also want to get the right result for their exports, so they will welcome the thoughtful and careful approach set out by the Secretary of State. I urge him to continue that careful approach to make sure that we get this right, not rush to make decisions, as Labour Front Benchers want us to, when we are in danger of then not getting the right deal for my constituents and for the country as a whole.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
May I press the Secretary of State on the issue raised by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)? Japanese companies employ 140,000 people in the UK, and the Japanese Government say that these companies need to maintain tariff-free trade, consistency of regulation between the UK and the EU, passporting rights for financial services, and continued access to EU workers. In order to minimise uncertainty for these vital companies and their employees, is the Secretary of State going to prioritise any of those criteria? If not, which ones will he pursue?
Mr Davis
I have already made this pretty plain. All the issues that the hon. Lady names, such as passporting and access to markets, are being looked at and evaluated in terms of where the real risks are. Let me take passporting as an example. I have consulted a number of people in the City on passporting, and I get very different views. The City is not a single business but a sort of ecosystem of businesses, and one gets different views from each of them. Some of them have different solutions too, such as “brass plate” arrangements and so on. We have to assess all that before we decide exactly how we organise the strategy. It is pretty straightforward. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) pointed out, it is straightforward, but it is complex to calculate and complex to work out, and we will do that.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing his position. I appreciate what he said about taking time to get this right and building a national consensus, because it is right, regardless of how we all voted, that we must make a success of it. Is he sufficiently confident that there is clear delineation between the interests of his Department, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the Department for International Trade to make sure that there is no conflict of interest between them so that due credit can be given for the success of negotiations as they go on? In terms of parliamentary scrutiny, does he envisage himself coming before a Select Committee based on his own Department alone or some other arrangement, and if so, when?
Mr Davis
On that last point, when I was still on the Back Benches it would have been very dangerous for any Secretary of State to try to tell Back Benchers how to organise their Select Committees. I would certainly not have accepted it then and I will not fall into that trap now. On the question of relationships with the Foreign Office and the Department for International Trade, we have very clear purposes. Mine is effectively one of support for the Prime Minister, who is the leader of this exercise. The Department for International Trade has the task of exploiting the enormous opportunity this creates and the Foreign Office, as my right hon. Friend will well know from his own experience, has plenty on its plate too but will also act in a sympathetic and supportive way to establish all the relationships and build all the alliances that will deliver a positive outcome at the end of these two years.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. In March, the Secretary of State for Scotland stated:
“Our access to the single market of 500 million people reduces costs for Scottish businesses by removing barriers to an export market, currently worth around £11.6 billion.”
What evaluation has the Secretary of State made of the impact of exiting the UK on the Scottish economy?
Mr Davis
It is a pleasure to hear from the hon. Lady, my old ally on other subjects. We have not yet done that calculation, but we will. She crystallises rather well the task we have to do in the next few months—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) is now trying to give me organisational advice; I suggest she focus on her own party first and worry about us next. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) is absolutely right. That impact is exactly the sort of thing we have to assess and we will assess it, and will do it carefully. I intend to deliver on our undertaking that we will ensure that this outcome serves all parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I was very grateful that my right hon. Friend appeared to accept the principle that when we repeal the European Communities Act we should transpose EU law into UK law. Given that EU law currently applies in the UK, does he accept that any complexity that might be apparent today would apply whether or not we repealed that Act, since that body of law applies? Will he therefore be very careful that paid advisers—perhaps paid by the day—do not introduce complexity in order to extend their fees?
Mr Davis
I know that there has been a great revolution in employment law, but I do not think that any of my civil servants are paid by the day. I take my hon. Friend’s point, and we will make sure that we consult widely and do not rely on a single source. This is part of the issue: on so many of the legal and technical issues we deal with, we get different sets of advice from different components of the same industry. The same is true here. That is what we will do; we will resolve it properly before we act.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I campaigned for the UK to remain in the EU, but I accept the outcome of the referendum and the views of the majority of my constituents. The Secretary of State has always, from the Back Benches and the Front Bench, defended parliamentary sovereignty, and that is why I am struggling to understand why he is seeking to deny Members of this House an opportunity to feed in the views of their constituents on the Government’s negotiating strategy before the triggering of article 50. That would not be to stop the triggering of article 50, which I will vote for, but to help shape that negotiating strategy.
Mr Davis
I think that the hon. Lady is misinterpreting what has been said. What we are saying is that there is no point in having a vote in the House on article 50, because all it can do is stop the instruction that the British people have already given us. That is not to say that we will not have debate after debate or that I will not appear before Select Committee after Select Committee. Indeed, I am of course accessible to everybody in this House, from all parties. I do not see that as a barrier to her bringing forward the concerns of her constituents. Indeed, I strongly encourage her to do so as soon as possible.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
May I join the chorus welcoming the Secretary of State to his post, and also welcome the Prime Minister’s statement about Britain becoming a global leader on free trade? May I urge him to follow the example of Japan and, indeed, every other non-European member of the G20 in engaging in free trade deals and negotiations, which is never to give up national control over immigration or, indeed, pay a fee?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend, who is an old friend of mine, is exactly right. The most successful countries in the world in establishing free trade deals—this might surprise Members—are places such as Chile and South Korea. They never, ever give up anything other than access to their own market in exchange for a free trade deal. Not one of them gives up money or immigration rights.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the British people made a decision on 23 June and we should respect it. I will certainly not be arguing for another referendum. We now need to make the best of the negotiations. He will, however, know that there is uncertainty, certainly in the north-east of England, about the future of EU structural funds. Can he give a guarantee that, once we come out of the EU, those funds will be replaced by the Government?
Mr Davis
I cannot speak for a future Government—as the hon. Gentleman well knows, that will be beyond the next election—but I promised the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) that we will put in the Library the Chancellor’s letter underwriting many of the structural funds, research grants and common agricultural policy funds that are already in place. It would be better if he looked at that carefully, rather than rely on my rather inaccurate estimate.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post, although its precise title is not the stuff of my dreams. Nevertheless, this is a new dawn and a new day and he has a job to do. What has he done so far about the university sector, which is struggling with research and development issues and considering issues relating to the free movement of people and to the single market?
Mr Davis
The Chancellor made some arrangements that helped underpin the current circumstances. The Student Loans Company has made some arrangements and I saw Universities UK myself the other day to find out what other concerns it has. We are pursuing those concerns, so I do not think that we can be accused of not paying proper attention to that sector. We are very conscious that it is a sensitive sector in these terms.
As for the title of my Department, I do not know whether my hon. Friend was the parliamentary wag who called it “Department X”, but thank you very much.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Following on from that question, 15% of our academics are EU citizens and we would like more. What is being done to give them long-term security?
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. May I remind him that the remain campaign was characterised by a campaign to spread fear and uncertainty about the future of this country? And they are still at it—oh yes, they are still at it—and they are trying to make this process as complicated and as protracted as possible in order to try to frustrate it. May I warn my right hon. Friend that it would be a mistake to try to agree everything about our new relationship with the European Union by the time we leave? Leaving the European Union is but a first step towards a new relationship with our European partners and the establishment of a new relationship with the rest of the world. What the business community, the country and, indeed, many in the European Union want is speed and certainty as quickly as possible.
Mr Davis
I hope that my hon. Friend was not accusing me of being a member of the remain group. One of the things that I noticed over the summer as I pored over the vast tomes of papers that come with this job was the tendency to blame everything on Brexit, ranging from bank lay-offs to the state of the Italian bond market, which have nothing to do with Brexit. My hon. Friend is right about that, but the simple truth is that we have to get this right. We will do it as expeditiously as possible. We will not delay one day more than is necessary to do the job that we have to do, but it is a complicated and extensive relationship that we have to untangle, and we will do so in good time.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Two months ago, I asked the then Home Office Minister for urgent clarification on the status of the EU nationals resident in Britain, including the 36,000 EU nationals resident in the London borough of Westminster. They are people who are going about their jobs and setting up businesses, and they need confirmation of their status. I was told that that was going to be a priority. What does the Secretary of State mean by priority?
Mr Davis
I will answer the question, but before I do, let me just say this. One of my concerns was that quite a lot of European Union citizens who are in Britain were being unnecessarily frightened by that argument. People should bear it in mind that leave to remain is pretty much automatic, if someone has a clean criminal record, after five years, and that is the case for citizenship after six years. This process is not going to happen for two years, so if someone has been here for three years already, they are in a pretty safe place.
Having said that, the Prime Minister and I have both said in terms that we want to provide a generous guarantee to European Union citizens who are already in this country. I am confident that that can be delivered as long as we get proper, civilised treatment for British citizens abroad—who are, after all, our responsibility too.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment. There could be nobody better for the job. In order to help the Opposition, who have badly lost touch with the working-class voters they once claimed to represent, will he agree that people voted to leave in the referendum because they wanted to control immigration, they wanted to stop handing over more than £10 billion a year net to the European Union and they wanted laws to be decided for this country in this House and not in Brussels? Will he therefore make a commitment that in his negotiation, the red lines for him will be full control over immigration, no contribution to the EU budget and that all laws will be decided in this House and none will be decided in the European Union? [Interruption.]
Mr Davis
Somebody on the Front Bench muttered that I should be all right with that; I shall not say who. I demurred from—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker. I demurred from second-guessing our own negotiating position for six months in respect of the Labour party, and I am going to demur in this case. I will say this to my hon. Friend: the decision of the British people was, I think, first and foremost about control of our own destiny over and above anything else, and that is what we are seeking to return.
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State is an immensely cerebral denizen of this House, and therefore there is no need for him at any time to imitate a turnstile. That is best avoided.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I also welcome the Secretary of State to his place, but may I say to him that many of us wanted rather more detail than a few more reheated old soundbites? We know the old slogan “Brexit means Brexit”, and what we got this afternoon was an essay on how waffle means waffle. May I commend to him the approach of the Japanese Government, who have not simply spent the last seven weeks setting up a Brexit commission, but gone to the lengths of reporting its results? I hope that that diligence and speed will inspire his work in his Department over the months to come.
I want to press the Secretary of State on his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). He made a big play in his statement of his ambition, which I share, to restore parliamentary sovereignty. Will he therefore give this House a vote on the final package for Brexit, whenever and however it is finally negotiated?
Mr Davis
First, on this issue of detail, the right hon. Gentleman should know well that we are not simply looking at the interests of a limited number of companies and a limited number of banks, which is obviously the issue for the Japanese Government. We are looking at the interests of a whole economy, so it will take just a touch longer. Given his prior experience, he should know that, and he should know it well.
In terms of the position with respect to parliamentary approval, I suspect that a great deal of things will be brought before the House during the course of the negotiation, not just at the end. There will be plenty of opportunity both to speak about them and to vote on them.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The very welcome appointment of my right hon. Friend, and indeed of the Foreign Secretary and the International Trade Secretary, certainly shows that the Prime Minister means what she says and that Brexit will really happen. However, some people on the losing side hope to sabotage the result of the referendum by delaying the process indefinitely. Is my right hon. Friend absolutely confident that, come what may, the UK will be outside the European Union well before the date of the next general election?
Mr Davis
I have said very plainly that we will not trigger article 50 before the end of this year, but we will trigger it as expeditiously as possible. The article 50 process takes two years. Extending it takes unanimity among every other member of the European Union, and my right hon. Friend can make his own judgment about both the probability of that and the arithmetic that it delivers.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
The people of Stoke-on-Trent voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union. I will therefore work tirelessly and do everything I can to make sure that we make the best efforts for and get the best deal from that exit. To help me and other Members on both sides of the House to do so, will the Secretary of State place in the House of Commons Library details of what is going on, what is being looked at and timetables, when they are available, rather than—dare I say it—the very generalised explanation he has given today? May I put in an early bid for him to meet north Staffordshire Members of Parliament from across the House to hear at first hand the issues of great concern to those who voted for exit, as well as to others, in our city and just outside it?
Mr Davis
Let me say two things to the hon. Gentleman. One of them he did not ask about, but I am going to tell him anyway: I take this very seriously. When I talked about the British industrial working class voting for Brexit, it was his sort of seat I had in mind, and I take that very seriously. I take those votes, those people and their lives very seriously indeed, so I will see his group with the specific aim of identifying their concerns and worries about their futures and the prospects and opportunities that go with them.
To that end, I will also do what I can to make this process as open as possible. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that this is a negotiation, and you do not play cards with all of them turned face up, as he will understand. Nevertheless, I will do what I can to make the process as open as possible. He said that what I have said today has been rather general, but I have been talking about the process. The Department has 180 people —it has quadrupled during August—and this is a fast-developing process. I mean it to be open, and I asked for a statement on the first day back so that the process can be open to everybody in the House. That is what we will do, and perhaps we will start with him.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May I welcome the Secretary of State to his position, not least because he headed up Conservative GO? Unfortunately, one of the drawbacks of being made Secretary of State is that he can no longer wear the green tie. He has been as clear as he can—one of his great advantages is straight talking—but will he give us his best estimate now of the date on which he thinks we will actually leave? I am asking for his best estimate. We will not hold him to it—nobody is that worried—but will he just give us a date?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has always been a great defender of parliamentary democracy. Throughout the afternoon he has emphasised that the situation is complex and there are trade-offs to be made. That is why it is so incomprehensible to many of us that he does not want the House to have a vote before the path is chosen for how to trigger article 50. I wonder whether he is aware of the statement made by the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Hague, that it would be sensible
“to endorse the start of negotiations”
as
“a defeat for the terms of exit, after lengthy negotiations…could leave the UK in…limbo”.
Mr Davis
I always listen very carefully to my fellow Yorkshireman. Let me say to the hon. Lady that the reason for the question of article 50 not being put to a vote of the Commons is simply this: I am a great supporter of parliamentary democracy because it is our manifestation of democracy in most circumstances; in this unique circumstance we have 17.5 million direct votes that tell us what to do. I cannot imagine what would happen to the House in the event that it overturned 17.5 million votes. I do not want to bring the House into disrepute by doing that. I want to have the House make decisions that are effective and bite into the process. That is what will happen.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In welcoming my right hon. Friend to his post, may I stress to him the importance of achieving fairness when it comes to our immigration policy? Does he agree that whatever criteria eventually guide it, we must have an immigration policy that no longer discriminates against the rest of the world outside the EU, as our present policy does?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. He has campaigned on this matter for a very long time, I know. All I can say is that he should bear in mind that I am not the Home Secretary. My job is to bring the power back so that the Home Secretary can exercise it. I am quite sure she will listen to what he has said and pay great attention to it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Today, the Japanese Government have provided the British people with more detail on what Brexit means than the UK Government. Most of us had hoped that we would hear more this afternoon, but I am sad to say that what we have heard was sadly lacking in detail and could best be described as the Ladybird guide to exiting the European Union. This is not a petty point; like many other hon. Members, this summer I have been speaking with major employers in my constituency—in particular, the financial sector in Edinburgh South West and the universities, Heriot-Watt and Napier, which are huge employers. They are all very keen to see a detailed explanation of what Brexit will mean for them, their institutions and their employees, my constituents. When is the Minister going to give this House that sort of detailed explanation?
Mr Davis
The first point to make is that we have been in the European Union for 40-odd years. The links are very complicated. The effects on much of our society are quite complex, and some of them are quite expensive to replicate. The hon. and learned Lady will get the information she is asking for, but stepwise, as it comes out and as we generate it, and it will be accurate and useful at that point in time. A few months is not going to be a problem for her constituents.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
May I also join in welcoming the three Secretaries of State to the Front Bench? They are like magnificent dreadnoughts at anchor, and we wait for them to set sail enforcing the pax Britannica. May I echo the comments about the importance of science, but also bring to the Secretary of State’s attention the creative industries, which grow three times faster than the UK economy as a whole? They rely to a certain extent on European regulations, such as the poetically named audiovisual media services directive and the general data protection regulation. May I gently nudge their interests near to the front of the queue as the Secretary of State takes us out of the European Union?
Mr Davis
I say to my right hon. Friend that he almost does not need to nudge them forward. I am very conscious of the issues relating to the film industry, in particular, which is a very mobile industry in both capital and personnel terms, and is therefore one that we are looking at very soon—indeed, it is the subject of one of the roundtables I was talking about earlier.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is well placed to address the problems with EU rules faced by Tate and Lyle in my constituency, and I welcome him to his position. It sounds from his earlier answers as though he thinks that it is possible that, at the end of the two-year negotiation, Britain will continue to be a member of the European Union single market. Will he confirm whether he thinks that is possible, and in what circumstances he thinks that would be the outcome?
Mr Davis
What I said—and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I misled him—is that I am seeking to get the best possible access. That does not necessarily mean being a member of the single market. As listed earlier, plenty of countries have that access without making the sorts of concessions that we have had to make as a member of the Union.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
It is good to see the three Brexiteer Cabinet Ministers sitting together in the Chamber, working for one nation, with one referendum and one clear decision, despite the fact that some people, including Tony Blair, who famously offered us a referendum and then took it away, have said that there is a chance that we might remain a member of the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that we will be leaving the European Union in its entirety? When does he envisage us getting our hands on the Brexit dividend—the membership money—so that we can spend it on our priorities?
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position and thank him for the fact that one of his early visits was to Northern Ireland. Will he ensure that he always talks to the official Opposition there? What I have been picking up from businesses throughout the summer is uncertainty, which we have talked about. It is absolutely key, particularly in Northern Ireland, that we do not slip into a recession. We are always on the edge of it. Will he keep that foremost in his mind?
Mr Davis
Very much so. One group I met in Northern Ireland was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s new business advisory group, which talked about exactly that. Sadly, we were there on the day of the Caterpillar announcement, which was bad news—it was nothing to do with Brexit but with a problem with markets in the far east. We will have that clearly front and centre.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his resurrection. He spoke about the value of free trade with the European Union when we leave it. That trade consists of trade in both goods and services. The barriers to it are tariff barriers, which have been discussed extensively, and non-tariff barriers, which have received rather less attention. What reassurance can he give to the many businesses in this country in the services sector, which is particularly important to us and is growing—trade with the European Union in the sector is important—that the removal of non-tariff barriers, which is in their interests, will continue?
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is the author of the resurrection line I cited earlier, and I would say a couple of things to him. I am tempted to use Ghandi’s comment about western civilisation. The single market in services would be a good idea, but it is somewhat patchy to say the least, and one major part of the big exercise we are doing is trying to establish exactly what the non-tariff barriers are and where they can and cannot be resolved. I take his point entirely on board. Services is the one area where we have a surplus with Europe, and we want to keep it.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The industrial working class of West Dunbartonshire voted overwhelmingly to remain within the European Union and to become part of a sovereign, independent Scotland. With that, I welcome the Secretary of State to his position.
The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), who is no longer in her place, posed a very interesting question that requires further investigation on our relationship with Ireland. It is not just an economic relationship, but a social one and a familiar, reciprocal one across the length and breadth of this Chamber and the Dáil Éireann. After the Secretary of State meets the Foreign Minister of Ireland this week in Dublin, and possibly the Taoiseach, will he return to the Floor of the House and make a statement on their discussions in relation not only to the common travel area, but to the Ireland Act 1949, so that those relationships can continue when this part of the United Kingdom leaves the European Union?
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post.
The fishing industry, not least in Scotland, was once a proud and large industry envied around the world. Many of my fishermen constituents see leaving the EU as a huge opportunity. Will he reassure them, other fishermen and potential new fishermen around the United Kingdom that fishing will be very high on his list of priorities, including potentially taking the 200-mile limit back?
Mr Davis
One group I have met already is fishermen. The answer to my hon. Friend’s initial question about priority is yes. What form that takes depends on the interests of our fishermen. Because they have interests in other waters, I will not say yes to his second question, but on priority, the answer is yes, absolutely.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Whether we were on the side of remain or on the side of leave, we should now be on the side of doing things in the interests of the British public. In that context, the Secretary of State mentioned the rights of EU citizens and said that he was sure we could arrive at a generous settlement. May I suggest that people worry about their futures, whatever the legal framework? The negotiations with other EU member states on the rights of UK citizens there, and the rights of EU citizens here, are a top priority, because those people deserve to have those uncertainties settled as soon as possible.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post. He is absolutely the right man to do this important work. He will appreciate the complete economic illiteracy of the European Union. On the one hand, it writes very big cheques to middle-income and developing countries to bail out their flailing economies, and on the other, it gives unequal access to European Union markets. That clearly hampers the ability of those countries to be equal partners rather than supplicants. How can Britain do better?
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that we will never attain the goal of being a beacon of free trade unless the British financial services industry retains free and full access to the single market?
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place on the Front Bench, and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Trade, who are sitting either side of him. We have great faith in what they will deliver. Does the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union agree that not liking the outcome of a democratic vote is no justification for seeking to overturn it, however much sympathy we may have for Labour Members with their forthcoming democratic vote? This is a great opportunity for the United Kingdom. Is it not time to put the arguments of the referendum behind us and back Britain’s Government in getting a good deal for Britain? We are changing the direction of our country. This is not just the Government’s negotiation but Britain’s negotiation, and this House should unite behind them.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Greater Lincolnshire and Peterborough Federation of Small Businesses recently briefed me that the confidence of its members is at a four-year low. Like all of us, they want to make Brexit work and are keen to work with the Government to bring that about, but they are keen to retain access to the single market and ease of access to European labour. Most of all, they want certainty. What road map to certainty can the Secretary of State give them?
Mr Davis
Let me first deal with the immediate uncertainty and loss of confidence. There was undoubtedly a downward dip in confidence immediately after Brexit, partly because of all the terrible things people said would happen. They have not happened, and confidence is recovering, so let us put that to one side for the moment.
On access to markets, I am absolutely on the side of those FSB members. That is what we will seek to do, but we must take on board the fact that the sheer level of immigration into the UK from the European Union has caused social issues, and perhaps economic issues for low-paid workers and the like. We must balance that against the corporate interests—that is what we will do—and try to get the outcome that is best for Britain.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
As someone who supported Brexit, I offer congratulations on the creation of the Secretary of State’s Department and wish it success. However, may I gently ask him when he hopes to close down the Department and return the function of the Minister of Europe to the Foreign Office?
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will undoubtedly be aware of our debate later today on the tampon tax and the Government amendment that makes its abolition subject to the UK’s EU obligations, and not just our obligations of EU membership. Will he tell the House whether any exit agreement with the EU could include requirements on the UK to set minimum rates of VAT even after our membership ends? In that scenario, can he give us an absolute guarantee that we will be allowed to zero-rate women’s sanitary products?
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend and the whole Front Bench team to their important new roles in making a success of Brexit. Will the Secretary of State set out what discussions he has had with the EU Trade Commissioner, who has taken a much tougher line on article 50? We all agree it is in everyone’s interest to get on and negotiate before we exit, but in a recent interview she indicated that that will not be the case.
Mr Davis
Yes, but the commissioner is not in a position, frankly, to tell the Secretary of State for International Trade what he can do, subject to meeting European law. European law in this case means not putting a free trade agreement into effect until we leave. That is the limit. In terms of other discussions and negotiations, commissioners have tried to say that we cannot speak to other members of the European Union, which is sort of silly. We are an ongoing member of the European Union and we take our responsibilities seriously. It is implausible that, in our conversations with member states, we will not talk about what is coming next.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman’s assertion that the mandate for Brexit is overwhelming. I remind him that 16 and 17-year-olds, whose future as European citizens will be most affected by the decision, were denied a vote. While the Secretary of State is speaking with stakeholders, what steps will he take to ensure that young people are given a voice and a say in their future?
Mr Davis
One aspect of democracy is that one side wins and one side does not win. [Interruption.] Someone from the Labour Front Bench says that young people lost, which is certainly not true. We will see a bigger, greater and more glorious country in future than the one we already have. Just because the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) does not understand that does not mean that they lost.
To return to the hon. Lady’s point, young people may of course feel at this point that their views did not win the day. I am afraid that that is part of democracy. It is our job to ensure they gain from the outcome of that decision.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
In warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend to his very well-deserved position, I implore him to have early discussions with our right hon. Friends the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Transport and others to ensure that the words “European Union” are removed at the earliest possible moment from UK passports and driving licences.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The statement was 15 minutes of meaningless waffle from a clueless Tory Government who have absolutely no plan for this accidental Brexit. I say to the Secretary of State that there is no point in just dictating to the people of Scotland when it comes to Brexit. Some 62% of the Scottish people voted to remain within the European Union, along with every single one of the Scottish local authorities. How should their views now be progressed?
Mr Davis
And 1 million Scots voted to leave. Despite the partisan use of this argument by the Scottish National party for its own interests, the simple truth is that the Scottish view on whether it should have independence has changed not one jot. That is an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s waffle.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Congratulations on resurrection after 18 years. It gives the rest of us hope.
It was not just places such as Lincolnshire that delivered the leave result; it was the Labour heartlands in the north and the midlands. My right hon. Friend knows those heartlands very well indeed. Does he think it would have been helpful if the official Labour spokesman—if there is such a thing—had made it absolutely clear that the people had spoken and that all Conservative and Labour Members will deliver this democratic result?
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said during the referendum campaign that
“those with the big fields do the sheep, and those with the hill farms do the butterflies. That would make a lot more sense for the UK and it’s perfectly possible but only if we leave the EU”.
What reassurances can the right hon. Gentleman give the farming communities that are the lifeblood of rural Wales that subsidies will continue to the more-challenging-to-farm areas, so we are not turned into a big butterfly park?
Mr Davis
The first thing that happened was that the Chancellor underwrote the common agricultural policy payments. That was very important in its own right in terms of confidence for exactly those people. In the discussions on departure from the European Union, and on subsequent agriculture and trade policy, we are discussing exactly those things. We have very much in mind what the hon. Lady is saying.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I totally support the Government’s position not to rush into triggering article 50. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. He knows how important access to the single market is both for our own businesses and for inward investors from growth markets such as Asia. Does my right hon. Friend agree that just as we are currently in the European Union but have various opt-outs, so in due course we shall be out of the European Union but have the ability to continue arrangements that work well for all sides, for example Europol and the European health insurance card from which so many British families benefit?
Mr Davis
The first premise is returning power to this Government and this Parliament. How they deploy that power is entirely up to them. I would think any sensible Government would be involved in mutually beneficial activity. Israel subscribes to some European research operations and it is nowhere near being a member of the European Union. In those terms, my hon. Friend’s point is well made.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State repeat to the House the guarantee he gave in Northern Ireland last week that his Government will not seek to impose a hard border, which would restrict the free movement of people and labour between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? Will he extend such a guarantee to Gibraltar and Spain?
Mr Davis
I certainly repeat the statement I made in Northern Ireland last week. The soft border or open border—I am not quite sure what the right phrasing is—existed before either of us were members of the European Union. We were separate countries with different VAT and income tax rates. It seems to me entirely possible, given modern technology, that we can do the same, and that we can design an immigration system that is also able to cope. I certainly reiterate in the House what I said in Northern Ireland last week.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post and his statement, no doubt the first of many to this House. On 22 June, the day before the referendum, the FTSE closed at 6,261. Today, it is over 6,800—up 10%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this tells us all we need to know about investor confidence in our future: that we will be better off outside the European Union?
Mr Davis
What it certainly tells us is that the business community is not as afraid of this great new opportunity as was claimed before the referendum. I do not want to re-run the arguments of the leave campaign, but let me say that while market movements in stock markets are volatile, small and often reverse themselves, what do not reverse themselves are large inward investments. In the year in which our party committed to give the referendum, we had the largest inward investment in our history.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I congratulate the Secretary of State who has clearly learned the lessons from the leave campaign because he has said nothing at all today. His statement was 15 minutes of waffle and soundbites about “national consensus”, “interests of the entire nation” and “one nation”, which is completely at odds with the fact that 62% of the electorate in Scotland voted to remain. This does not bode well for meaningful input from the Scottish Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the claim made during the campaign by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), now the Secretary of State for International Trade, that Scotland would suddenly have control of a whole new raft of powers, including over immigration—or was that a piece of nonsense, too?
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour on his appointment—an inspired choice. While he has been in the role during these short few weeks, has he seen any evidence of contingency planning across any Whitehall Department prior to the referendum relating to the possibility that the British public might vote to leave the European Union? It strikes me that in a two-horse race, it might have been an idea to look into this possibility. Furthermore, given that we are going to have to look at all these different laws and 12,000-plus EU regulations that affect our lives, what progress are the Government making on ensuring that we recruit the brightest minds to do this properly?
Mr Davis
Given that my Department did not exist before I arrived in it, it is rather difficult to find documents that relate to what happened beforehand. There was certainly some planning done on the financial side—to deal with any financial turbulence. As we saw, the Bank and the Treasury undertook certain measures. As for the Department itself, I have brushed across it, but the fact that it quadrupled in size in August certainly says something. My hon. Friend will remember from his days as a Parliamentary Private Secretary what Whitehall is like is August—it is empty. We are not short of applicants, and we really have the brightest and the best applying to help us. That applies to the Department for International Trade as well as mine, so my hon. Friend can feel confident about that.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Secretary of State, whom I welcome to his post, reaffirmed in his statement the Chancellor’s promise that all structural investment fund projects signed before the autumn statement would be underwritten by the Treasury as we leave. That is a bit of a quandary for the people of Greater Manchester. We have been allocated to 2020 £322 million in European structural investment funds, but £157.9 million of that has not yet been contracted. It is currently held up in Whitehall Departments, predominantly the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions. Can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the people of Greater Manchester get all the £322 million allocated to them by the European Union—and not the lesser amount that has already been approved by the Government?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his well-deserved appointment. Some 61% of the people of Kettering voted to leave the European Union and they want to make sure that my right hon. Friend has the tools to finish the job. Following the question about staff numbers from my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), the Secretary of State says that he has 180 people at the moment, but how many does he need? Given that his Department will hopefully no longer exist in two years’ time, what incentive is there for the brightest and best civil servants, who will have long-term civil service careers in mind, to join his Department; and what incentives are there to attract people from the private sector?
Mr Davis
The first thing about incentives—we barely need them—is that people will want to be at the centre of the most important historic change that has happened over the last two or three decades. I do not think that will be a problem. Arrangements are being made, precisely because we will disappear when the process is over, to ensure continuity and to ensure that they will go back seamlessly into the Whitehall system. I rather suspect that, at the end, there will be lots more bids for them than that.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
Membership of the European Union allows young people in Scotland the freedom to easily live, learn and work across Europe, and they voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to young people living in my constituency that these benefits and freedoms will be retained after Brexit?
Mr Davis
That is a good question. I would expect us to be able to ensure that there will be freedoms that are at least as good as those that are in place now. One important aspect—it applies to the EU, but particularly to Britain—is that we are a science superpower. We have a fabulous education system and some of the best universities and the best students in the world. I think that that will be reflected in the outcome that we see in a few years’ time.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position. Speaking as a parliamentarian who has never seen him in action at the Dispatch Box, it is an absolute pleasure to watch him. Enough of all that, however; let me get down to the nitty-gritty in my blunt northern way. Will my right hon. Friend look into VAT? As he knows, it was a purchase tax before 1973; it is now VAT. It has fluctuated up and down over the years, but irrespective of that, many small businesses out there need the taper relief because when they hit the VAT threshold, it can actually kill them off. I know that—I was a small businessman; I succeeded, but it was a problem. Will my right hon. Friend please look further into this on behalf of the small businesspeople of the United Kingdom?
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my parliamentary neighbour on his appointment. As he knows, the Humber estuary is fast becoming the UK energy estuary, with Siemens investing massively in Hull and having the potential to export to the single market. Trade deals with Australia will not really cut it in Hull, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet a delegation from the Humber to make sure that the green energy industry benefits from the huge and exciting opportunities that he has talked about?
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend say that he had begun the huge task of going sector by sector to assess the undoubted challenges that many parts of the British economy will face. Will he add a second column to his spreadsheet for the opportunities that those sectors might have and that might arise from Brexit? We all know from every industry and business that we have worked in that there will be areas of promise from leaving the European Union, particularly in respect of avoiding onerous and excessive European regulations that hold back British economic sectors. Will my right hon. Friend create a parallel process of assessing those regulations so that we can be in a good position as soon as we leave?
Mr Davis
That is a good point, and we are on it already. The opportunities side of the spreadsheet, as my hon. Friend puts it, is integral to the process. We have already had reports on some of them, but we are also challenging some of the points that have come back to us because of a degree of special pleading. It takes a little longer than just asking the question, but yes, we are doing what my hon. Friend suggests.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
In June, Vote Leave issued an unequivocal letter, co-signed by the Foreign Secretary, saying that the levels of funding that constituencies such as mine currently receive from the European social fund would continue post-Brexit. Will the Secretary of State repeat that guarantee from the Dispatch Box today, or was that letter simply worthless?
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place. One of the greatest opportunities presented by leaving the European Union, particularly for Cornwall, is reclaiming the UK’s territorial fishing waters. Will my right hon. Friend commit not to using this natural resource as a bargaining chip for the wider deal but to embracing the opportunities that this could deliver to coastal communities such as mine and others around the UK?
Mr Davis
I have never experienced so many attempts to seduce me into making promises. As I said earlier, this will be one of the gains from the European Union negotiation, but there may be some internal negotiations within it. If my hon. Friend speaks to his local fishermen, he will see what I mean.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Following the referendum, in which Renfrewshire voted 2:1 to remain, I wrote to businesses across the county to offer any support that I could, and visited many businesses and institutions during the summer recess. They are all desperate for information, but, shamefully, the Secretary of State offered nothing but doubletalk, prevarication and assertions in his statement. When can EU citizens and businesses in Renfrewshire expect some details to emerge about what Brexit will entail, and about how the Government plan to spend the Foreign Secretary’s £350 million a week windfall?
Mr Davis
I repeat what I have said already: the information will become available as we work through the process. If the hon. Gentleman somehow imagines that this is a “Lego block” process in which anyone could engage without thinking about it, I suggest that he look at it again.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State to his position, but may I ask whether he appreciates that the appetite of people in Scotland for a further independence referendum, and, indeed, how they might vote in such a referendum, will depend in large part on the response that he and the Government now make to those people’s decision to reject, by a large majority, the separation from the European Union? In 2014, we were promised that Scotland would be respected within this United Kingdom. If, in the months ahead, proposals emerge which offer the prospect of separate and different arrangements for Scotland and for the European Union, will the Secretary of State listen and consider them in good faith, or will he reject them out of hand?
Mr Davis
Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, may I apologise to him for the late response to the letter that he wrote to me earlier in the summer? We did try to give him some facts in it.
In respect of the discussions with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations, let me say this first up. There is a joint ministerial committee, in which the First Minister, or her nominee—whichever she wishes—has been offered a place, and that will be the process whereby we will look at all proposals. The Prime Minister has said that we will look at all proposals. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman upfront that—as I said to the First Minister when I spoke to her about it—I really cannot see how his proposed arrangement could be made to work, but we will look at it.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment. May I ask him a question about immigration controls? Do the United Kingdom Government propose to continue to differentiate between entry restrictions applying to citizens of the European Union and those applying to people from outside the EU?
Mr Davis
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is this. My task is to bring the control of that process back to the Government and back to Parliament, and it is for the Government and for Parliament to decide how they use it. The simple truth is that I expect us to see a much more even-handed policy in the future than the one that we have now, but I think that we must wait until the negotiation is completed.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It is clear to SNP Members that the Government’s handling of the withdrawal from the European Union has been nothing short of a disgrace, and the lack of leadership shown by the new Prime Minister has done nothing to quell the fears of either British citizens or EU nationals living on these islands. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the only person who has shown any leadership and forward thinking on Brexit is the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon?
Mr Davis
I must say that I thought the hon. Lady was going to refer to Ruth Davidson, who won the popularity contest this time round, but let me say something else about the Scottish nationalist approach to this. Our new Prime Minister, before she even carried out her reshuffle, went to Scotland to see the First Minister. How much more respect one politician could pay to another I do not know, but what gratitude do we get for it? What we have just heard.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I will let the House into a secret. Back in 2008, when the Secretary of State resigned his seat over civil liberties, I, as a young 22-year-old, sent him an email wishing him all the best in that election, and, despite our differences, I have been an admirer of his since then. I have to say, however, that I was disappointed by the weakness in his statement. My constituents voted to remain by more than 70%—the highest proportion in the city of Glasgow—but they will expect me to get the best deal in the circumstances. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State outline what powers he expects the Scottish Parliament to gain as a result of the Brexit vote, and when he expects those powers to be implemented?
Mr Davis
First, it depends very much on what is agreed in the negotiation. Secondly, the undertaking that was given was to do everything possible to protect all the interests of all the parts of the United Kingdom—and Scotland, of course, is at the front rank of those people. The issue is not about giving powers to politicians; it is about looking after the interests of the people, and that is what will happen. We will look after the interests of everyone in the United Kingdom, including Scotland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank the Secretary of State, the Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons, and all 85 Back Benchers who had the opportunity to question the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that other instalments will follow in due course.
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I regret to inform the House that last week the British Medical Association announced that it was initiating further rounds of industrial action over the junior doctors contract. They involve a series of week-long all-out strikes between now and Christmas, which were scheduled to start next Monday, although this afternoon the BMA delayed the first strike until 5 October. That news is of course welcome, but we must not let it obscure the fact that the remaining planned industrial action is unprecedented in length and severity and will be damaging to patients, some of whose operations will have already been cancelled.
Many NHS organisations, including NHS England, NHS Providers, the NHS Confederation and NHS Improvement, have expressed concern about the potential impact on patient safety. Indeed, this morning the General Medical Council published its advice to doctors on the strike action. While recognising a doctor’s legal right to take industrial action, it urged all doctors in training to pause and consider the implications for patients, saying:
“Given the scale and repeated nature of what is proposed, we believe that, despite everyone’s best efforts, patients will suffer.”
Many others have also questioned whether escalating the strikes is a proportionate or reasonable response to a contract that the BMA junior doctors’ leader, Dr Ellen McCourt, personally negotiated and supported in May. She said then that the new contract was
“safer for our patients, safer for our junior doctors… and also fair.”
She said, with respect to junior doctors, that the contract
“really values their time, values them as part of the workforce, will really reduce the problem of recruitment and retention, emphasises that all doctors are equal, and has put together a really good package of things for equalities.”
We recognise that since those comments were made, the new contract has been rejected in a ballot of BMA members. However, it is deeply perplexing for patients, NHS leaders and, indeed, the Government that the reaction of the BMA leadership, which previously supported the contract, is now to initiate the most extreme strike action in NHS history, inflicting unprecedented misery on millions of patients up and down the country. We currently expect up to 100,000 elective operations to be cancelled and up to a million hospital appointments to be postponed, which will inevitably have an impact on our ability to hit the vital “18 weeks” performance standard.
Today I want to reassure the House that the Government and the NHS are working round the clock to make preparations for the strikes. All hospitals will be reviewing their rotas to ensure that critical services such as accident and emergency, critical care, neonatal services and maternity services are maintained. The priority of all NHS organisations is to ensure that patients have access to the healthcare they need and that the risks to patients are minimised, but the impact of such long strikes will severely test that. As with previous strikes, we cannot give an absolute guarantee that patients will be safe, but hospitals up and down the country will bust a gut to look after their patients in this unprecedented situation and communicate as soon as possible with people whose care is likely to be affected.
Turning to the long-term causes of the dispute, it is clear that for the BMA negotiators it has been largely about pay, but I recognise that for the majority of junior doctors there is a much broader range of concerns, including the way their training is structured, the ability to sustain family life during training periods, the gender pay gap and rota gaps. After the May agreement, we set up a structured process to look at all these concerns outside the contract and I intend that that work will continue.
Health Education England has been undertaking a range of work to allow couples to apply to train in the same area, to offer training placements for those with caring responsibilities close to their home, to introduce a new catch-up programme for doctors who take maternity leave or time off for other caring responsibilities, and to look at the particular concerns of doctors in their first year of foundation training. Today, HEE has set out further information for junior doctors about addressing these non-contractual concerns, and we are proceeding with the gender pay review that I mentioned in my last statement to the House on this issue.
We have also responded to specific concerns raised by the BMA. First, the BMA, NHS Employers and Health Education England have agreed changes to strengthen whistleblowing protections for junior doctors beyond the scope of existing legislation, so that junior doctors can take legal action against the HEE, in relation to whistleblowing, as if the HEE was their employer. Secondly, in direct response to the concerns raised by Dr McCourt over the role of the independent guardians of safe working hours, NHS Employers has written to all NHS chief executives to set out in considerable detail the expectations for the new guardian role. As of 2 September, 186 of 217 guardians had been appointed with the involvement of BMA representatives, with a further 15 interim arrangements in place, and it is expected that all will be appointed by the middle of this month.
Many junior doctors have expressed concern about rota gaps, and the new contract acknowledges and tackles this concern. The guardians of safe working hours will report to trust and foundation trust boards on the issue of rota gaps within junior doctor rotas. This will shine a light on the issue and it will be escalated, potentially to the Care Quality Commission and the General Medical Council, when serious issues are not addressed. I strongly urge all those considering taking industrial action to consider the progress being made in all these areas before making their final decision.
With respect to the broader debate about seven-day care, we recognise that many doctors have concerns about precisely what is meant by a seven-day NHS. As Sir David Dalton stated publicly last week, we offered to insert details of our seven-day plans in the May agreement, but this was rejected by the BMA, so it is very disappointing that it now says the need for more clarity over seven-day services is one of the reasons for the strike, but given that it has said that, I would like to repeat further reassurances on that front today.
First, while the changes to the junior doctors contract are cost-neutral—that is, the overall pay bill for the current cohort of junior doctors will not go up or down—our seven-day services policy is not cost-neutral, and will be funded out of the additional £10 billion provided to the NHS this Parliament. Secondly, while the pay bill for the current number of junior doctors will not increase, we do expect the overall pay bill to go up as we have committed to employing many more doctors to help to meet our commitment on seven-day services. That means that our plans are not predicated on simply stretching the existing workforce more thinly or diluting weekday cover.
Thirdly, we recognise that junior doctors already work very hard, including evenings and weekends, and while we do need to reduce weekend premium rates that make it difficult to deploy the correct levels of medical cover, we expect this policy to have greater implications for the working patterns of other workforce groups, including consultants and diagnostic staff. Finally, we have no policy to require all trusts to increase elective care at weekends. Our seven-day services policy is focused on meeting four clinical standards relating to urgent and emergency care, meaning that vulnerable patients on hospital wards at weekends will get checked more regularly in ward rounds by clinicians, and clinicians will be able to order important test results for their patients at weekends.
Despite these reassurances, there may remain honest differences of opinion on seven-day care, but the way to resolve them is through co-operation and dialogue, not confrontation and strikes which harm patients. To those who say these changes are demoralising the NHS workforce, I simply say that nothing is more demoralising or more polarising than a damaging strike. It is not too late to turn decisively away from the path of confrontation and to put patients first, and I urge everyone to consider how their own individual actions in the coming months will impact on people who desperately need the services of our NHS.
This Government will not waiver in our commitment to make the NHS the safest, highest-quality healthcare system in the world, and I commend this statement to the House.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The prospect of a rolling five-day strike by junior doctors was one of the utmost gravity. The junior doctors have suspended next week’s action, which is a step I believe the whole House welcomes, but the remaining programme of industrial action stays in place. If it eventually goes ahead, it will be the first such strike by junior doctors in the entire history of the national health service.
What the current situation shows is that there has been a complete breakdown in trust between junior doctors and the Government. The morale of junior doctors could not be lower, and that is not something for the Secretary of State to dismiss. But somehow the Secretary of State continues to take no responsibility for the current state of affairs—no responsibility for repeatedly arguing that the only problem was that doctors had “not read the contract”, no responsibility for the misleading use of statistics by claiming that thousands of patients were dying because of poor weekend care.
The president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Professor Neena Modi, said:
“despite concerns raised by senior officials, Jeremy Hunt persisted in using dubious evidence about the so-called ‘weekend effect’ to impose a damaging Junior Doctor contract under the bogus guise of patient safety”.
The Secretary of State still insists that the contract is about a seven-day NHS when we know now that his own officials were telling him that the NHS had too few staff and too little money to deliver what he was talking about.
The Secretary of State well knows that the public simply do not believe him in his attempt to demonise the junior doctors. Try as he might, he has failed to convince the public that somehow junior doctors are the “enemy within” or mere dupes of the BMA. Far from being manipulated, doctors voted emphatically against the new contract.
Everyone in this House will remember the 7/7 bombings and the No. 30 bus which exploded in Tavistock Square, a few yards from the headquarters of the British Medical Association. Everyone will remember the pictures of doctors, who had been in meetings and their offices, pouring out of the BMA building, heading for the 14 dead people and the 110 victims, without flinching or faltering, fulfilling their vocation of saving lives. These are the people that the Secretary of State seeks to vilify.
Today we know that the junior doctors—who, contrary to what the Secretary of State implied, have always made patient safety a top priority—have cancelled the action planned for next Monday, but if we are going to remove the threat of industrial action, there are questions that the Secretary of State has to answer. There are widespread reports of deficits and financial crises, so how can the NHS move to enhanced seven-day week working, even with the proposed £10 billion the Secretary of State mentioned in his statement, when there are not the resources to maintain the status quo?
I welcome the structural work going on outside the contract on issues such as work-life balance, the gender pay gap, the rota gaps, strengthening whistleblowing protections for junior doctors and, importantly, looking at the role of guardians of safe working hours, but the Secretary of State talked in his statement about confrontation: what could be more confrontational than seeking to impose a contract? Even at this late stage, I ask him to listen to the junior doctors’ leader, Dr Ellen McCourt, when she says:
“We have a simple ask of the Government: stop the imposition. If it agrees to do this, junior doctors will call off industrial action.”
The public are looking for the Secretary of State to try to meet the junior doctors: stop vilifying them, stop pretending they are the “enemy within”, and meet their reasonable demands.
Mr Hunt
I will respond to the hon. Lady’s comments, but she needs to be very clear to the House about the implications of Labour’s position on this. She has just said that she welcomes the suspension of next week’s industrial action, but that was not her position at the weekend. At the weekend, when the medical royal colleges, the General Medical Council and even The Observer criticised the proposed strike, what was she saying? She was saying that she would join them on the picket line—something her predecessor refused to do. The fact is that strikes cause harm, misery and despair for families up and down the country. When one of the most extreme members of the BMA junior doctors executive, Dr Yannis Gourtsoyannis, said that these strikes were
“the single most positive thing that has occurred within NHS politics in decades”,
what was Labour’s response? Did it condemn that? No. The shadow Chancellor actually invited him to advise Labour on policy. I just say this because—
Mr Speaker
Order. For clarification, I must emphasise that there is no concept of giving way in respect of a statement. Although this might resemble a debate to those who are attending our proceedings from beyond the confines of the Chamber, it is a statement with a response. There are no interventions.
Mr Speaker
We are always grateful to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for whatever counsel he might wish to proffer, even if it is done from a sedentary position.
Mr Hunt
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The shadow Health Secretary needs to recognise that working people, the people her party claims to represent, need a seven-day NHS. The vulnerable people that Labour claims to represent get admitted to hospital at the weekends, and in industrial disputes patients should always matter more than politics. The next time she meets a constituent who has suffered because of not having a seven-day service or because their operation has been cancelled because of a strike, she and her colleagues should hang their heads in shame.
The hon. Lady has used some very strong words. She used words such as “vilifying” and “demonising” in relation to the junior doctor workforce, and that is a very serious thing to say. I challenge her to find a single piece of evidence that has come from me or anyone in the Government, and if she cannot do so, she needs to withdraw those comments and apologise to the House. The fact is that the single most demoralising thing for the NHS workforce is strikes, because they entrench and harden positions, which results in people getting very angry, and it becomes much harder to find consensus.
The hon. Lady also talked about the use of statistics. She does not have to listen to what I say—and I understand, given the sparring that goes on between us, that she might not want to—but we have had eight academic studies in the past five years that describe increased mortality rates for people admitted to hospitals at weekends. Her response to this, in a phrase she used in another context, was that there was “zero empirical evidence” for a weekend effect. I would caution her on this, because taking that approach to hard data is exactly what happened at Mid Staffs, where hard evidence was swept under the carpet year after year because it was politically inconvenient. This Government will not make that mistake.
Finally, the hon. Lady said that my civil servants had apparently advised me that this policy would not work. Not at all. What happens with every Government policy, as you would expect, is that smart civil servants kick the tyres of every aspect of the policy to enable us to understand the risks involved. She did not mention the fact that the same document to which she referred actually says that we are on track to deliver the four clinical seven-day standards to 20% of the country by next April. I think that her constituents will welcome that, even if she does not. These strikes are going to harm patients, damage the NHS and make it harder, not easier, to resolve the challenges facing junior doctors. Labour has chosen political opportunity today, but we will do the right thing for patients.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it has been an indefensible anomaly for many years that the national health service so reduces its services at weekends when the patients it serves are vulnerable to urgent or emergency conditions and need the highest standards of care for chronic conditions on a seven-day basis? Will he continue to make what he has described as careful progress? Will he also make it clear that the seven-day service will not simply do routine work and that it will be introduced as resources and staffing allow in line with civilised conditions? Further, on the strange politics of the dispute that keeps coming back to haunt him, does he agree that while the BMA has always been one of our most militant trade unions and while the Labour party has been very left wing in its leadership before—most notably in the 1980s—it is almost inconceivable that at any time in the past such extreme militant action that threatens patients would have been supported by the BMA or the Labour party? They are now opposing a contract that union leaders praised as a sensible settlement, given the improvements that it offered, only two or three months ago.
Mr Hunt
As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend speaks incredibly wisely. Actually, his last comment goes to the nub of why this is totally extraordinary, unprecedented and completely unacceptable. It is true that the junior doctors have rejected the agreement that was reached in May in a ballot, and we have to accept that. There are all sorts of reasons why that might have happened, but the choice to escalate the industrial action and to call the worst strike in NHS history was made not by those junior doctors but by the BMA leaders. They made that decision about a contract that they themselves had described as being good and safer for doctors and patients only in May. How can they justify that? Is there not perhaps a desire to pick a very big fight?
We were making good progress over the summer in a whole series of dialogues in different areas to try to resolve some of the non-contractual issues that the junior doctors are worried about, but this action makes it virtually impossible to continue that progress, although we will try very hard to do so. My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to say that this is completely unacceptable and damaging for patients. I am afraid that I am having to go through some of the very same battles that he had to go through when he was Health Secretary.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I know how difficult it will be for junior doctors to take part in the strikes that have been described, and I personally am really sad that we have come to this point. Does the Secretary of State recognise the anger and desperation among the junior doctors that have led us to this point? In my mailbag from junior doctors, two things stand out. One is that the threat of imposition was there right from the word go last summer, and it therefore felt like a threat rather than a negotiation. The other involves the misuse of numerical statistical data by translating it into a claim that it refers to avoidable deaths at weekends, even though there has been no evidence of avoidable deaths. The Secretary of State has not commissioned a review of cases that might show how many of those deaths were avoidable and whether a lack of junior doctors contributed to them. The real danger in the NHS at the moment is rota gaps. Doctors are being asked to do double shifts or to carry two pagers, which means that where there should be two doctors covering an area or a service, there is only one. That is a real, palpable danger right now.
The Secretary of State has said that he would employ extra junior doctors rather than spreading the same number more thinly, but where does he plan to get them from when we cannot even fill the existing posts? I welcome the focus on the four clinical standards that boil down to greater senior doctor review and access to diagnostics, but does he not think that we might have got further if we had started at that point last summer? He calls for a turn away from strikes and for getting around the table to co-operate and discuss these matters, so when is he going to meet the junior doctors to try to avert these strikes?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady is a doctor, and I would simply say to her, as I said to the shadow Health Secretary, that she needs to justify the claims that she constantly makes in this Chamber about a misuse of statistics. I have been very clear about when we can actually statistically say that a death is avoidable. The studies demonstrate clearly that a higher number of people are dying from weekend admissions than we would expect. What this Government will not do is sit and ignore those numbers, which are backed up in study after study. I think that we are doing the right thing, and as a doctor she should recognise that.
The hon. Lady has said time after time over the past year that the Government should lift the plans to impose the contract and get around the table and negotiate. She could today have given the Government credit for doing exactly that in May when we thought there was an opportunity to do a deal. We lifted the imposition of the contract and got around the table to negotiate a deal that turned out to be good for both sides. Having done that, the problem is that the same people with whom we negotiated the deal have decided to call the most extreme strike in NHS history, which is unacceptable.
Rota gaps are a real problem that we are trying to address by, first, ensuring that systems are in place for junior doctors to blow the whistle if they think that such gaps are unsafe for patients. That is why we have introduced guardians of safe working, and we are committed to that. Secondly, we want to ensure that there are people to fill those rota gaps by training more doctors. We are training 11,420 more doctors in this Parliament than in the previous and already have around 9,000 more doctors than in 2010. As a doctor, those are things that the hon. Lady should recognise.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
As always, I am keen to accommodate everybody who wants to take part, but I think it not unreasonable, given the relatively small number, for me to hope that we might conclude these exchanges by 10 past 7—quarter-past at the latest. Brevity is of the essence. We do not need long narratives. We just need questions and short answers. We will be led in that mission by the Chair of the Health Committee.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I welcome the BMA’s suspension of next week’s damaging industrial action. It is clear from its statement that thousands of doctors had been in touch to say that they wanted to keep their patients safe. Doctors know that they cannot do so with full, rolling, five-day walkouts. Will the Secretary of State therefore join me in asking the BMA to ballot its members to hear their views before they proceed with the other proposed, damaging, five-day walkouts?
Mr Hunt
The BMA should talk to its members much more because, as far as I could tell, the consultation over the summer showed that only a minority actually wanted this extreme series of rolling one-week suspensions of labour that the BMA supported in the end. Most junior doctors are perplexed and worried about the situation and would love to find a solution. There was a bitter industrial dispute, but we actually started a process through which trust was being rebuilt on both sides. In a series of meetings, I met the junior doctors’ leader to talk through the areas of her greatest concern and we made progress in addressing two of those four outstanding areas. Building that trust means actually sitting around the table and talking, not having confrontational strikes. I think that that is what most junior doctors want.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I want to return to the critical issue of how we ensure safe cover during the week if we expect doctors to work more hours at weekends. The Secretary of State has repeated again today that he will employ more junior doctors, but what is the timescale? What will the net increase in doctors be this year, next year and in the rest of the Parliament?
Mr Hunt
I do not have figures to hand for exactly what the number will be this year—I will certainly let the right hon. Gentleman know—but around 11,500 extra doctors will be trained during the course of this Parliament.
As I said in the statement, it is important to recognise that the changes involve not only junior doctors. We need more weekend consultant cover—that is particularly important—and more people who are able to do the diagnostic tests. A whole range of people need to take part in the changes to improve standards of care at the weekends.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his reasonable yet resolute approach throughout the negotiations, which has been reflected in the fact that the leaders of so many royal colleges chose to criticise the decision to go on strike. The suspension of the strike action is therefore wholly welcome.
My right hon. Friend made the point that clinical standards will be improved as a direct result of the move towards a seven-day NHS. Will he enlighten the House about which particular types of patient in which circumstances will benefit as a result of his welcome drive to improve patient care?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to do that. Indeed, I am delighted to take a question from my right hon. Friend, because it is after someone has long departed an office that people actually appreciate that big, important changes were made, which was certainly the case from his tenure as Secretary of State for Education.
One of the clinical standards states that people admitted at weekends should be seen by a senior doctor—a consultant or an experienced junior doctor—within 14 hours. They will be seen by a doctor much sooner than that, but they should be seen within 14 hours by someone experienced enough to know whether there is something to worry about. That would happen in most places during the week, but it does not happen in many places over the weekend. Another standard relates to the most vulnerable patients who are at real risk of going downhill. This is not the clinical term, but doctors say that spotting people who are going downhill is one of the most important things. Such people should be checked at least twice a day by someone experienced enough.
Those are two of the four clinical standards that we want our constituents to be reassured are in place across the country. We think that that will make a big difference.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Health Secretary will know that a worrying number of A&E and maternity departments were either closed or downgraded over the summer because they simply could not get the necessary number of junior doctors: Chorley, Ealing, Stafford—I could go on. If we are training more junior doctors, why do we still have that problem?
Mr Hunt
The pressures in the NHS mean that there is a need for more doctors for all sorts of reasons, and we do not have as many doctors as we need at the moment. That is why this Government are training more doctors and putting an extra £10 billion into the NHS. The manifesto that the hon. Lady stood on just over a year ago would not have put that sort of funding into the NHS and would have meant that we were unable to train that number of extra doctors. We are doing that, but it takes time and we need to ensure that services are safe while we are getting there.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his balanced and reasonable approach in the negotiations despite provocation from people who really should know better. Does he agree that there cannot have been a single occasion in the history of the NHS other than this in which the General Medical Council—the body responsible for professional standards—has effectively had to intervene to stop a strike? Will he also admit that we might have underscored the centrality of Sir Bruce Keogh’s four clinical standards a little more when introducing the notion of the seven-day NHS?
Mr Hunt
In response to my hon. Friend’s last point, we have been clear from the outset about what we mean by a seven-day NHS for hospital care, but a huge amount of misinformation has been put out. This time last year, for example, the BMA was telling many people that our plans were to cut pay by between 30% and 50%. That is why strikes are damaging. Positions get entrenched on both sides and misinformation sometimes gets out, as it has done, causing a lot of anxiety.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the GMC’s significant intervention. The medical regulator is completely independent of Government and has been clear that doctors have a responsibility not to take a decision under any circumstances that would lead to their patients being harmed.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, prior to taking up this office in June I was an emergency medicine junior doctor on the frontline of our NHS for the past 11 years. Today, doctors have listened and have halted strike action, putting patient safety first.
This is not the first time I have stood before the Secretary of State to say that I worry that the imposition of the contract does not put patient safety first. The Government can train all the extra doctors they want, but current junior doctors are leaving. The risk of having a contract imposed on them is causing them to move further afield to places such as Australia. I have always maintained that a safe seven-day NHS cannot be created with an overstretched five-day team and the rota gaps are proof of that. Doctors have listened today. Will the Secretary of State listen and please halt the imposition?
Mr Hunt
I thank the hon. Lady for what she did alongside many colleagues working in A&E departments over many years, but to call this an imposition is a mischaracterisation given what actually happened. The contract was not only agreed, but recommended and supported by the leaders of the BMA. Before she was elected, we had many discussions in the House about whether negotiations were possible and what I should do, and there were a range of different views. In the end, I listened—just as she has asked me to today—and sat down and negotiated a deal that was supported by the BMA’s leaders. That is why it is so incomprehensible that those same leaders—the people who represent her and her profession—have now called the most extreme strike in NHS history.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I put it to my right hon. Friend that the choice for junior doctors or doctors in training is whether they have the old contract or the agreed contract. I have not yet had a letter from any of my doctors saying that they think the old contract is better for them, for the health service or for patients. May I therefore recommend that they sign up willingly to the new contract, that they start discussions with the BMA, and through the royal colleges, on what should happen in a few years’ time when the contract itself comes up for review and that they work to improve the non-contractual situation, which my right hon. Friend has provided a good lead on?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. In May, the BMA leadership, with whom we were having a very open discussion, had satisfied themselves that on the concerns many junior doctors have about their working conditions, many of which I accept are wholly legitimate, we had done pretty much everything we could inside a contract and the work that needed to be done was on the extra-contractual things. I am talking about the way the training system works when people are being rotated to a different hospital every six months, the fact that some people were being sent to a different city from their partner and how bad that was for family life, and all sorts of other things that need to be sorted out. Ironically, since the introduction of the working time directive, things have got a lot worse for many people, although we do not want to go back to the excessive hours of before. Those were the things we were patiently working through, and the way that is done is through dialogue, not confrontation, which is why this action is such a step backwards.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is it not a weakness of the Secretary of State’s argument that it is just conceivable that he is wrong about imposing a settlement on a seven-day week for the NHS? It takes two to cause a strike, which is why he should look at this proposal again. He is very airy-fairy about training these doctors for the future. He is not being clinically correct at all. He has heard from people who have recently worked there, so why does he not reassess this seven-day week, get around the table, stop imposing a settlement and come to a negotiated agreement?
Mr Hunt
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, if I am wrong about this, so are the leaders of the BMA, because they said the contract that he says I should not impose was a good contract, safer for patients and for doctors, and good for the NHS, for equalities and for a range of things. The contract we are proceeding with is one that doctors’ leaders said was a good deal for junior doctors, so if we are going to resolve this, that is the contract we should proceed with.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I express my strong support for the Secretary of State, not only for the measured way in which he has handled today’s statement, but for the way in which he has conducted the negotiations, as shown by the 100-plus concessions that have been made to doctors’ negotiating positions over the past four years? Is not the inevitable logic of the BMA’s suspension of the strikes—I warmly welcome that—on the advice of other medical professionals that this should be applied in exactly the same way to the other strikes that have been called? The same logic would apply. Would it not be best for the BMA’s reputation to call off the rest of the strikes and to work with the Government on the other non-contractual areas that need to be dealt with, so that we can move forward from this, end this period of confrontation, get the health service that we all believe in and end some of this silly rhetoric coming from those who suggest that Conservative Members do not believe in the NHS?
Mr Hunt
I have a stunning new ministerial team, two of whom I am pleased to see here today, but I wish to take this moment to say how much I enjoyed working with my right hon. Friend last year. Then, as now, his advice and thoughts are very wise. The Government have made 107 concessions, and the BMA might like to think what signal it sends if that many concessions are made, an agreed deal is reached with the union leadership and the reaction then is for the most extreme strike in history to be called. What encouragement will that give to other Ministers to be moderate and reasonable in their negotiations with unions? The position being taken is preposterous and many other choices could have been made when dealing with losing the ballot, but he is right in what he says.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
A lack of workforce planning and weak financial management have led to staff shortages, which have been a major contributor to this dispute. The Department of Health accounts and NHS England accounts, which came out on 21 July, underlined that weakness in financial planning, with the Comptroller and Auditor General saying clearly that he had real concerns about the future sustainability of NHS funding. We have, however, heard the Secretary of State say again today that the £10 billion available is to solve the issue about the seven-day NHS, but we have also heard that money promised for many other things by the head of NHS England. Does the Secretary of State really have a plan for the financial sustainability of the NHS? If so, what is it?
Mr Hunt
We do and we are implementing it. I know that the hon. Lady has looked at this in great detail, and I simply say, in broad terms, that following the tragedy of what happened at Mid Staffs the NHS was very honest about how some of the poor care there was happening in other places and NHS trusts decided that they needed to have more staff in their hospital wards. The poor workforce planning that she talked about, which goes back many decades in the NHS, meant that the result was an explosion in the use of agency staff, the cost of which rose to more than £3.5 billion in the last financial year, which has put huge pressure on finances. The lesson that we must take away, not just for the junior doctors’ strike, but for financial sustainability, is that we need to be better at workforce planning and training up the number of doctors and nurses that we need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In other words, I am totally unqualified as a medical doctor. Therefore, may I ask a question about democratic mandates? I appreciate that, unlike a referendum, a general election does not give an entirely specific mandate on every proposal put forward, but will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to remind the House and the country of how central the proposal for a seven-day NHS was to the Conservative manifesto as far as his Department was concerned?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend is right, as that was our only really substantive promise in terms of a commitment to the NHS at the last election. We are funding it and we have an absolute obligation to the British people to deliver on it. That is why in that short period after the last election I felt I had to be clear with the BMA that we were going to deliver on that manifesto promise. If the BMA had reflected on that, it might have perhaps behaved differently from how it did.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
In the light of the ongoing dispute and concerns about patient safety, has the Secretary of State given any consideration to the idea of compulsory independent arbitration, binding on both sides, to settle disputes where patient safety and public safety is in dispute? Will he look at that?
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Last Thursday, I was at Queen’s hospital in Burton having a minor skin procedure—hence my black eye—where I met not just junior doctors and consultants, but patients. Let me tell my right hon. Friend how concerned they are about this series of strikes. They just do not understand it, as one junior doctor said to me—he may or may not have been in the minority. Dr Johann Malawana, the previous BMA representative for junior doctors, said that this was a “good deal” for junior doctors—I noted that down at the time. One point that was made to me was that this constant defence of BMA action by the Labour party and, in particular, by the Labour spokesman is regarded as being encouragement for these strikes, whether she means to do it or not. May I urge her to say, “Look, it is not good enough. It is not good enough for patients and it is not good enough for the NHS”?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All of us in this debate have one simple thing to consider: what is the right answer for the people we represent? They understand that there are financial constraints and that the NHS cannot do everything, but they do want us to strive to make it safer and better the whole time. It is a surprise and a disappointment that we do not hear more of that language from the Labour party.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
My constituents who are patients do not want this strike, and I do not believe that my constituents who are doctors want this escalation in industrial action. If it is the case that only 4% of doctors support this escalation, should the BMA not again check its mandate?
Mr Hunt
It absolutely should. The BMA has been out of step with both the British public and its own members this week. My hon. Friend’s own hospital in Hereford—Hereford county hospital—is in special measures. It has a huge number of problems, which it is working really hard to sort out, and we are helping it to sort them out. Is that not what we should be focusing on in the NHS, rather than having to do contingency planning for these damaging strikes?
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the actions of the BMA in warmly backing the contract in May only to condemn it in August and call for these extreme strikes have seriously damaged its credibility? On the issue of pay, which we know from the leaked WhatsApp messages is the only red line, can he confirm that no doctor working legal hours will be paid less?
Mr Hunt
Yes, I can absolutely confirm that. We have put in place pay protection to make that happen. My hon. Friend is right that this is very damaging for his constituents in Cheltenham. Given that there is so much pressure in the NHS, the junior doctors who are thinking of striking must ask themselves whether it is really going to help their organisation respond to those pressures if it has this enormous distraction—this incredible demoralisation that we get with these kinds of strikes.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment that the BMA leader who co-authored the new contract and said that it was beneficial for our patients and for our junior doctors is now trying to whip up support for a series of strikes that every credible medical leader has said would be disproportionate and harmful to patients?
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
The fact that these strikes are occurring and being called off is very serious, especially against the backdrop of this contract. One of my constituents, who is a doctor, the chairman of Doctors in Unite and the deputy chairman of the BMA, stated in the Sunday Times that this issue could be used to beat the Tories and make the country great again. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is appalling that patients across the country are being used as pawns in the political game of “Corbynista-ism”?
Mr Hunt
I completely agree. I am afraid that this is where I am very, very disappointed with the Labour party. Thrilled though it might be to have so many supporters of the leader in the more extreme ranks of the BMA, it helps no one to try to use the NHS as a political pawn and to weaponise the NHS as it tried so destructively to do before the last election.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Kettering general hospital is under pressure on a number of fronts. Even if the industrial action does not take place, the threat of it diverts key personnel from their normal difficult task of contingency planning, filling rotas and making sure that patients stay as safe as possible. Does my right hon. Friend agree that even the threat of industrial action does huge harm to our hospitals and the NHS?
Mr Hunt
I am more than happy to agree with my hon. Friend. The staff at Kettering general hospital work extremely hard. I have been there, as he knows. It is a very busy hospital. One shudders to think what the impact would be if we removed a third of the doctor workforce in a hospital such as that.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I was just reading an article from earlier in the year from The Guardian newspaper, which said that Saturday working is the major sticking point in the junior doctors’ dispute. Does the Secretary of State agree that any doctor who goes on strike over premium rates of pay on a Saturday, which most people in this country do not get when they work on a Saturday, should hang their heads in shame? Will he give a commitment that he will not make any further concessions, as he has already given far too many. Is it not time to look at whether we stop doctors from going on strike altogether in the NHS, as is the case with other emergency services?
Mr Speaker
It may be the first occasion upon which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has vouchsafed to the House that he is a Guardian reader.
Mr Hunt
I was nervous mentioning the fact that the Government have made 107 concessions when I saw that my hon. Friend might be in the Chamber because I knew that, for him, that would be 107 too many. His broader point is absolutely spot on. The working terms and conditions for Saturdays for junior doctors in this new contract are better than they are for nurses, police officers, fire officers and for those in many other parts of the economy. That is why I think it is a fair deal that everyone should recognise and welcome.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I know that the Secretary of State will agree that what sums up this dispute is that, under the existing contract unless the new one is brought in, we could be treated by a doctor working their 91st hour in a week. Does he agree that it is absolutely bizarre to see this level of strike action called when even the BMA’s own council was so divided over whether to support it?
Mr Hunt
That is absolutely right. What my hon. Friend is alluding to is the fact that, in the new contract, we are reducing the maximum hours that any doctor can be asked to work in any one week from 91 hours to 72 hours. There are all sorts of other safeguards that benefit safety. He is right. This should not be happening, and I urge the BMA to reconsider.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I offer my support to my right hon. Friend. I have never heard him vilify the doctors, as he was accused of doing. That language was not appropriate in this debate. Is he aware—I have heard this from one chief executive—that hospitals have been told not to speak to the junior doctors to try to resolve the dispute within the hospitals and the foundation trusts themselves? If there has been such an instruction, does he agree that it will not help solve the dispute for the future?
Mr Hunt
I am very surprised to hear that. If my hon. Friend wants to pass me the details, I will happily look into it. On the ground, the management of hospitals are working very closely with not just junior doctors, but BMA representatives to try to do everything they can to keep patients safe if these strikes go ahead.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am most grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues. Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings First day New clauses, new schedules and amendments to clauses and schedules relating to corporation tax. Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. New clauses, new schedules and amendments to clauses and schedules relating to tax avoidance and evasion. Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. New clauses, new schedules and amendments to clauses relating to VAT on women’s sanitary products. Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order. Second day New clauses, new schedules and amendments to clauses and schedules relating to capital gains tax. 4.30 pm New clauses, new schedules and amendments to clauses relating to insurance premium tax; remaining new clauses, new schedules and amendments to clauses and schedules; remaining proceedings on consideration. 6 pm
Finance Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Finance Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 11 April 2016 in the last Session of Parliament (Finance (No. 2) Bill: Programme)):
1. Paragraphs (11) and (12) of the Order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the days shown in the following Table and in the order so shown.
3. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
4. Proceedings in Legislative Grand Committee and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7 pm on the second day of proceedings on consideration.—(Jane Ellison.)
Finance Bill
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 252 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:22 - The House divided: - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
23:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 291 - Question accordingly negatived.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Review of the operation of the Patent Box—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay an independent report of the value for money provided by, and the efficacy of, the Patent Box legislation before both Houses of Parliament.
(2) The report shall—
(a) assess the size and nature of the companies taking advantage of the Patent Box legislation;
(b) assess the impact of the Patent Box legislation on research and innovation in the UK, including supporting evidence; and
(c) assess the cost effectiveness of the Patent Box legislation in incentivising research and development compared to other policy options.”
New clause 11—Assessment of taxation regime for securitisation companies—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within six months of the passing of this Act, commission an independent assessment of the efficacy of the taxation regime to which securitisation companies are subject and lay the assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
Amendment 177, page 87, line 6, leave out clause 44.
Amendment 162, page 87, line 8, ‘leave out clause 45.
Government amendments 152, 153, 1 to 29, 154, 31, 155, 33 to 59, 156, 61 to 113, 157, 115 to 117, 158, 159, 119 to 128, 160, 129 to 131.
Kirsty Blackman
I rise to speak to new clause 5, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, but I wish briefly to mention amendment 162, which has been proposed by the Labour party. I look forward to hearing from its Front-Bench Members. If they intend to push the amendment to a vote, we will join them in the Lobby.
New clause 5 is about the corporation tax treatment of the oil and gas industry. The House will not be surprised to hear me speaking on this subject as I have done so a number of times. What we want is a comprehensive review of the corporation tax rates and investment tax allowances applicable to companies producing oil and gas in the UK, or on the UK continental shelf. This is a timeous ask from us for a number of reasons. For a start, this Bill implements measures that were put in place and discussed first in February and March, before the EU vote, and there have not been any substantive changes by the Government to the Bill as a result of the Brexit vote.
Substantive changes to the Bill are needed because we find ourselves in a completely different situation as a result of the fall-out from Brexit. It is unfortunate that changes have not been made and that there have not been more announcements from the Government about how they intend to manage the financial situation going forward. We want to know about the impact on Aberdeen, which I represent, and on the UK’s tax take and the Treasury. It is important that we seriously consider making changes to the Bill.
We have repeatedly asked for changes to the tax rates and for a comprehensive strategic review. We appreciate that the Government made changes earlier this year, but we do not think they go far enough. Alex Kemp, a renowned petroleum economist, and his long-term research partner, Linda Stephen, are both at Aberdeen University, where they have been working on sophisticated modelling tools. If the Minister has not read the article that appears in Energy Voice today, it is worth reading, together with the report that accompanies it. The work that they have done suggests that corporation tax of 30% is too high, and it is far above the non-North sea rate. They said:
“From the analysis of the economics of new field investments and exploration in current circumstances in the UKCS it is clear that, at $50 and $60 prices, there are many ‘marginal project investment situations’.”
That is key. It is what we have been arguing, and now it is backed up by renowned experts.
The position in which the industry finds itself bears repeating. Estimates vary, but we have lost around 125,000 jobs—from 425,000 we are down to about 300,000. That implies a huge reduction in the tax take for the Treasury and it is a massive hit for the local area, particularly Aberdeen and across Scotland and other oil and gas-producing areas. Because of the reduction in the oil price, we have seen changes in the behaviour of companies. As well as making people redundant, they have changed shift patterns and terms and conditions. They have also managed to reduce production costs, which is a good thing.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Brexit casts further uncertainty over the oil and gas industry, which under this Conservative Government has seen the legislative goalposts moved almost continuously, thereby hindering vital investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that given that the Bill implements measures devised prior to the EU vote and, as such, fails to provide for an economy that is facing the harsh reality of Brexit, more must be done to mitigate investor uncertainty in the oil and gas sector?
Kirsty Blackman
Indeed. Brexit compounds the issues that we have seen in the oil and gas industry, particularly in the North sea, and affects investment. This year we are expecting less than £1 billion-worth of new capital projects to be agreed. In each of the past five years we have seen an average spend of £8 billion. There has been a massive drop-off. Much of that is linked to the global oil price, but the Government have not done enough to increase investor confidence, especially in the light of Brexit. New projects are not being sanctioned because of companies’ negative cash flow. Jobs are consequently being lost all the way along the supply chain. We are losing contracts, expertise and people working in the industry in and around Aberdeen, Scotland and the UK.
Exploration and development activity is at an all-time low. Oil and Gas UK produced a report in February this year which predicted that if the current trajectory of low investment and new projects not being approved continues, we will see a fall in production in 2020. We are not ready for that. Our strategy has been to maximise income and recovery, and the Oil and Gas Authority’s main aim is to ensure that we get as much out of the North sea as we can. Because of the lack of investor confidence and the inability to sanction new capital projects, that is becoming increasingly difficult.
I have asked various Ministers about the Government’s intentions. We are not seeing investor confidence. We are seeing a major drop-off in investment, as the figures show. I welcome some of the changes that the Oil and Gas Authority has made. It is working on making it easier to transfer assets that have reached the end of their life. We do not want decommissioning to take place now. I understand entirely that if there is sufficient UK spend, there will be a financial benefit to UK companies from decommissioning, as long as we can ensure that the supply chain for decommissioning is based in the UK.
However, some of the assets that have been in the North sea for 30 years are at the end of their useful life and need to be decommissioned. I welcome the OGA’s push to ensure that as much of that spend as possible is in the UK, and I welcome its efforts to ensure that assets can be transferred so that as much oil as possible can be recovered from each of those fields. The OGA has been focusing on enhanced oil recovery, but the Government have not done enough in that respect. Changes are necessary to the tax regime to encourage companies to undertake enhanced oil recovery.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
I hear the hon. Lady standing up doughtily for her constituency and for the oil and gas industry in Scotland. What bemuses me is that if the independence vote had gone through, in spring 2016, Scotland would have had income of £100 billion and expenditure of £120 billion— a structural deficit of 20%. Now the hon. Lady is advocating increasing that black hole. How would she bridge that gap?
Kirsty Blackman
We are under a Westminster Government; we do not have full control of our own economy. That is a damning indictment of the way that the Westminster Government are running the economy of Scotland. It is incredibly important that we get independence and that we are therefore able to make decisions, particularly in the oil and gas industry, where the Government have not moved quickly enough or been flexible enough in the changes they have made. It is important that we make the decisions and grow our economy, because the Westminster Government are failing to do so.
On the future for energy and for the North sea, Statoil produced a report entitled “Energy Perspectives”. It is important to consider the future for the North sea and the UK continental shelf in that context. Statoil predicts that up to 2040, total primary energy demand will grow between 5% and 35%. That is a wide range because a number of different scenarios have been analysed. In all scenarios there is an increase in total energy demand. Statoil predicts that energy demand in 2040 will be between 78 million barrels a day and 116 million barrels a day. We currently use over 90 million barrels a day. It is important to note that as we think about the move towards renewables and different forms of energy generation, but by 2040, even if we have a huge number of renewables, we will still see a massive demand for oil and gas across the world. Oil and gas will still need to be produced in order to support the economies of the world. It is vital that we ensure that the UK continues to be involved in that and to benefit financially from it.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
On that point, is my hon. Friend aware that more than half of the oil supply and support companies in the UK are located in England, and that the amendment affects all oil companies across the UK, not just in Scotland?
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate that point. I was not aware of the numbers. However, from talking to colleagues across the House who have been very supportive of companies and industries in their constituencies, it is clear that the number of companies is substantial. We are discussing UK spend and, whether we like it or not, we are part of the UK, and the tax changes will help all the companies in the oil and gas industry throughout the UK, whether they are in Aberdeen, Wales or the south of England.
The Oil and Gas Authority has been very good at talking positively about UK supply chain spend, which is one of the most vital aspects. Although I have talked about energy demand and oil and gas demand out to 2040, we will see, at some point, a reduction in the amount of oil and gas being produced by the UK. It is key to note that we are world leaders in terms of our oil and gas expertise. We are very good at what we do, and we are respected across the world. In sub-sea technology, for example, we are 20 years ahead of America. America has not done very much when it comes to Gulf of Mexico extraction. We will be there teaching the Americans how to use sub-sea technology and exporting that technology to them. Even when the oil and gas in the UK eventually run out, we will see that our expertise is able to be exported. It is really important that the Government act now to ensure that we keep that expertise base and do not lose it in the current downturn.
Rob Marris
Is the hon. Lady saying to the House, then, that the Scottish National party’s position is to export the expertise of the Scottish hydrocarbon industry so that we can have more and more carbon dioxide going into the environment from fossil fuels because, for example, the Gulf of Mexico is producing more with Scottish expertise? If so, she is running counter to the direction of the world in the Paris talks.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I said. Statoil’s “Energy Perspectives” report reckons that even if we have a huge push towards renewable technologies and towards reducing carbon emissions, we will still need between 78 million and 116 million barrels of oil a day—and that is while taking on board, and increasing, the very best of these technologies. We will still continue to need, for example, road surfaces that are made from heavy oil. We will still continue to need these things, so we will always need oil, or at least for a long way into the future until we come up with credible alternatives. It is not just about energy or about electricity generation; it is about all the different things that we use oil for, including plastics.
It is very important to make sure that we have a great future in exporting. I have never been to Houston, but I am told that one cannot go there without hearing an Aberdeen accent. That is because we have the links and we send our experts over there, and those experts are making money for companies here by whom they are still employed. They are devising the technology that is being spent on and used in America and in other places across the world. In the North sea, we are operating in a super-mature field. This is one of the first fields in the world that is reaching that super-mature status. We have a proud history of exporting, getting incredibly good at what we do and teaching the rest of the world how to do it.
We also have a proud history of being respected around the world. Our oil and gas industry is respected throughout the world. If you say to somebody in an oil company in a different country, “This technology is used in the UKCS in the North sea”, it is automatically seen as a gold standard that is recognised around the world. In order for us to continue to generate tax revenues from this and to sustain jobs, we need to make sure that our companies have enough cash to innovate. Although the Government have been vaguely supportive in what they have done, they have not been supportive enough. Companies are still struggling to get venture capital and assistance from banks. I am aware that Ministers have spoken to banks, but it is still not enough. The confidence is still not there to the degree that we need it to be.
As I said, we are one of the first countries operating in this super-mature situation. What we really need now is a review of the taxes across the oil and gas industry. The system was devised many years ago in a totally different situation. It has had bits lumped on and bits lopped off, but it has never been looked at as a whole, and that is what we need to do now. I strongly urge the Minister to have a look at the entire tax regime for the oil and gas industry so that it can have a better future.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) will be glad to know that she can also come to my constituency and hear a few Aberdonian accents from time to time, without having to go out to the middle of Texas.
I have a lot of sympathy for the situation that the hon. Lady finds herself in. Inevitably, there has been a lot of tinkering with tax rates in oil and gas. In my 15 years in the House, it has seemed that barely a year goes by without many paragraphs of any Finance Bill being part and parcel of this. Clearly, we are not yet to know whether the gas price and oil price will be stabilised at $50 to $60 a barrel or will go in different directions. I am sure that the Treasury has this whole issue under constant review.
Philip Boswell
Many believe that the oil and gas industry has been adversely affected by Brexit. Earlier this year, I asked this Chancellor, in his first Treasury questions, when the people of the UK could get an insight into the scale of capital flight following Brexit. He replied:
“a series of data publications during the late summer and autumn will inform a proper response at the autumn statement.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2016; Vol. 613, c. 664.]
Many other hon. Members in this House asked similar questions to which the Chancellor gave a similar answer—that all will be revealed in the autumn statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Chancellor, having now had a few months to think about it, should at least furnish us with the date of the coming autumn statement?
Mark Field
I suspect we all know that the autumn statement will be coming up at some point in late November or early December, if precedent is anything to go by. As someone who was also very firmly in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union, I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have to make Brexit work, and this will take time. I understand the frustration of many who would like to see the Government put forward a template on these matters today, but I think they are right to recognise that we have to play our cards close to our chest. This is a diplomatic process that will take some considerable time. One of the great strengths that we have had as the United Kingdom in diplomatic affairs, going back many centuries, is the sense of being able to make something work for the interests of this country. We have to recognise what is going on in world affairs, whether in the oil and gas price or in prices in other areas. This is an incredibly volatile time, politically and economically, and the notion that we can have any direct template in place now, or indeed at any point during the course of this year, is wholly misleading.
Philip Boswell
The hon. Gentleman is being most gracious and I thank him for his time. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has mentioned real concerns expressed by the Japanese Government re investment in the UK. This concern was echoed when President Obama confirmed, post-EU referendum, that the EU is a much greater priority for US trade relations than the UK outside of the EU. Given US investment in oil and gas in the UK, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this Government have had more than enough time to give the British people a definitive definition of “Brexit” and should be informing the public of urgent action they are taking now to support important industries such as the oil and gas sector?
Mark Field
A huge number of actions are taking place now. It is far, far too early to have any definitive approach as to exactly what Brexit will entail. We have to ensure, to an extent, that we get as much of the benefit of being in the single market—I see that, obviously, in the context of the City of London and its passporting rights—as is compatible with the public’s clear view about free movement of people. I hope that in the months ahead we will begin to work on that. However, it is far too early, and it would be doing a disservice to all industries—oil and gas and others—that are so dependent on exports and on being global industries, with the expertise that they have across the globe, to be definitive about precisely what role Brexit has to play.
I wanted only to make a few brief comments on new clause 10 with regard to the patent box. I am sorry if I am moving slightly ahead of the observations of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on this matter. There has perhaps been a danger that Governments of all political colours over the past decade or so have been rather too much in thrall to certain industries, whether financial services or the global internet technology industries. It is worth pointing out that the benefit—the very significant benefit—of the whole patent box plan that was put in place by the former Chancellor some years ago is that it has begun to enable intellectual property value to be quantified and used as collateral in many of the fast-growth companies in the technology sphere. It strikes me that the Treasury, any Treasury, will now need new sources of revenue to swell our collective coffers at a time when the deficits remain dangerously high. Indeed, in what might be regarded as normal peacetime conditions we have an unprecedentedly high rate of deficit.
I also think that it would be wise not to ignore the level of public anger at the wilful tax avoidance of a number of the digital disruptors that are potentially the beneficiaries of this patent box plan, and the influence of that on the western economies has at times been somewhat pernicious. The sobering truth is that the global technology and communications service providers’ stratospheric growth over the past two decades has been aided by their ability to avoid taxation. Whether it is Google, Uber, Facebook or Apple, to name but four, they have been able to squirrel away their profits in the most tax advantageous manner, and I hope that the Treasury will consider that, as well as issues around the patent box, not just in the next six months but in the years to come to ensure that we have a more equitable situation that will be accepted by the public at large.
I accept also that as regards creative industries and global technology players it would be wise to reflect that perhaps elements of this advantageous tax treatment, not just by the UK Government but by other Governments in the western world, have been the price that taxpayers have had to pay to secure the essential co-operation in the sphere of internet surveillance that western Governments believe—rightly, in my view—to be so vital to national security.
I do believe, however, that it is time to recognise that corporation tax as we know it is probably past its sell-by date as an appropriate means of capturing value in a modern globalised economy. A levy on turnover, rather than profits, might in time be the best way forward—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I appreciate that the Floor of the House is perhaps not the place to be making policy, but I hope that the Treasury will at least give it some serious thought, particularly for these sort of industries. I always worry when “Hear, hear” comes from the wrong quarter, and I only wish there were a few colleagues on the Benches behind me to agree—but it came from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) and from elsewhere.
At the beginning of the year, Google made the headlines when it was revealed that despite employing some 2,400 people in the UK and harvesting a national estimated profit in excess of £1 billion—we obviously do not know exactly what that profit level was—it was able to pay corporation tax at a level of just 3%. Even before its recent travails, last year Apple declared foreign pre-tax profits of some $47.5 billion, on which it paid only $4.7 billion—some 9.9%—of tax, compared with group-wide income taxes of some $17.7 billion. That suggests that taxes on profits will not be the right way forward, particularly in these global industries where there is a risk that money can be squirreled aside. That said, it is important to say that the patent box, while purportedly and in some ways giving preferential treatment in this area at which we should look closely, has none the less brought some significant benefits.
One of the biggest problems that faces many internet businesses as they grow is the ability to quantify the value of their intellectual property rights. In many ways, failure to do that means that they do not get the opportunity to collateralise their book value to be able to borrow for the future. The patent box has made some successes in this regard.
I apologise for jumping the gun, as I know that we are slightly more interested in hearing the justification from the Opposition for their new clause 10. I do not feel that it would be the right way forward at the moment, but there are some important debates we need to have not just on the workings of the patent box-type legislation but on ensuring that we have a level playing field and a system that—more importantly—is understood and supported by the general public. Nothing has been more damaging for many of the big internet and technology service providers than the slew of bad headlines over the past few years about their avoidance of tax. In these difficult economic times, in particular, that is something that we can ill afford in this country.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I can worry the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) a little more by telling him that there was a “Hear, hear” from these Benches as well—[Interruption.] Members will be surprised at how loud we can be, and they will see that in the coming months and years.
It is absolutely time to have the debate about the best way to tax our businesses and to do what the Government claim they are doing—but are actually insufficiently doing through the changes to corporation tax—and support business in this country better through taxation that works but that also recognises and incentivises business.
Amendment 177 is a probing amendment that would sweep away corporation tax altogether and is intended to try to trigger that debate, which we should be having as a country. The reality is that the Government will continue to argue that a cut in corporation tax will somehow boost growth, but the evidence for a cut below 20% is simply not there. The Government are failing to ask whether corporation tax actually works. As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster has said, it is only a matter of time before we hear the next scandal of a company managing to avoid paying corporation tax. Last week, it was Apple’s deal with Ireland, a few months before it was Google, before that it was Facebook and before that it was Amazon. Even the Labour party got into hot water for having managed to offset profits to reduce their corporation tax bill, so surely Government Members will recognise that there is an issue.
We have endless arguments about the morality of some of these large multinational corporations and how they operate. There is often outrage—sometimes faux outrage—in this place, but that is not good enough and it will not deal with the problem. We must also accept that while the Government are making unnecessary and damaging cuts to HMRC, it makes it harder to challenge these companies that are testing the limits of the law.
There is an underlying unwillingness to address corporation tax and its fitness for purpose regarding the reality of multinational corporations in the 21st century. As Martin Sorrell, the chief executive of WPP, said in 2013 during the Starbucks corporation tax scandal, for many multinational companies whether to pay corporation tax is simply a “question of judgment”, something to be decided according to PR perception and perhaps their own corporate social responsibility policies but not something decided by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as it surely should be.
As the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster made clear, this is not and should not be seen in any way as a left or right issue. It is an issue of practicality. Last week in the Telegraph, Allister Heath published a piece entitled “The Apple fiasco shows why corporation tax is an outdated anachronism”. As the right hon. Gentleman has already said, Lord Lawson famously called for corporation tax to be a tax on revenue rather than profit. There are flaws with that but at least he was seeking to challenge the status quo, which is surely outdated. On the other side of the spectrum, The Guardian, Oxfam and the excellent Tax Justice Network have all rightly highlighted the ease with which multinationals can avoid corporation tax altogether.
There are ways in which we could better support business and could have a tax system that works. Businesses of all sizes are crying out for changes in the tax system. I know many businesses that say that the first thing they would like to see reformed is business rates and the second is VAT. There are industries that provide a huge amount to the British economy and pay a significant amount of tax that are not being listened to because they are not large corporations. For example, a change to VAT would have a much greater impact on the tourism and hospitality industries than tinkering with corporation tax in an attempt to grab headlines for being supposedly supporting business.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is no obvious solution, but surely it is time to find a solution to properly, fairly and sensibly tax businesses in the 21st century. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has already appointed Sir Vince Cable, the former distinguished Business Secretary, to lead a review of corporation tax and business rates for my party. That will make a contribution to the debate. Instead of claiming that the Government are standing up for business, surely it is time to acknowledge that yet more cuts to corporation tax over the next year will not truly deliver that and will not deal with the reality, which is that we are not collecting tax efficiently from companies that are now run in a very different way.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 162 and new clauses 10 and 11, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd). I also support new clause 5, which has been explained articulately by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and confirm the Opposition’s support for amendment 177, which has just been spoken to articulately by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland).
Amendment 162 would remove clause 45 from the Bill, thereby halting the Government’s cut to the rate of corporation tax to 17% by 2020. The Government claim that cutting the corporation tax rate would make Britain even more attractive to inward investors and more competitive, and that it would support growth and investment. I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on the evidential basis for those claims.
We all know the theory that states that if we cut tax on profits there is more cash for companies to invest in expansion, research and development and labour, and, theoretically, we become more attractive to foreign businesses. The problem is that, somewhere in the development of that theory, the Chancellor forgot to check the reality, as the figures do not support that age-old Conservative mantra.
Figures provided by the House of Commons Library show that in 1998 business investment as a percentage of GDP was 10.8%, and that in 2000 it was 10.6%. The rate of corporation tax in those years was 31% and 30% respectively. In 2015, business investment as a percentage of GDP was 9.7% and the rate of corporation tax was considerably lower than that in 2000, at 20%. Why, therefore, were businesses not in a state of investment frenzy in 2015, if, indeed, slashing corporation tax is a golden ticket to investment? Of course, I appreciate that there are many factors that affect the level of business investment in the economy, but a comparison of the figures seems to suggest that a lower rate of corporation tax does not correlate with a higher level of business investment.
Let us look at a different variable, namely foreign direct investment. The level of FDI in the UK has been steadily falling since 2005; there have been a few anomalies along the way, but the trend is most definitely downwards. That has coincided with a steady reduction in the rate of corporation tax. In 2005 the level of FDI flows into the UK was £96.8 billion and corporation tax was 30%. In 2014 FDI was £27.8 billion and corporation tax was 21%. Again, there could be many factors at play, but the figures demonstrate that there is no strong correlation between low rates of corporation tax and higher rates of investment and FDI.
I appreciate that, to a degree, low corporation tax rates may attract some companies to locate here, because they will want to pay less tax, but attracting them to truly invest in the development of industry here, as well as encouraging our UK companies to flourish, is another matter entirely, and that requires much more than just a tax break.
According to the Government’s own analysis, this cut is expected to cost the Exchequer almost £1 billion in 2020-21, in addition to the £2.5 billion cost in the same financial year of cutting corporation tax to 19% from 2017. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has also calculated that the Government’s cuts to corporation tax have cost £10.8 billion a year. That gives rise to the question of whether the money could be better spent to incentivise much-needed investment in the UK. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that the Opposition most definitely think it could.
Many businesses already have cash. The House of Commons Library has provided figures showing that the total amount of currency and deposits, or cash reserves, held by non-financial companies in the private sector is currently at a 20-year high, at £581 billion. The problem, then, is not that businesses need more cash, but that other factors in our economy need improvement, including skills, infrastructure, innovation and productivity.
The £10.8 billion estimated by the IFS is a large sum that would be better invested in filling the gaps in our economy that are failing business. We should not be engaging in a race to the bottom to become the world’s next big immoral tax haven, but providing the building blocks to make business actually succeed, and with that comes more revenue in taxes as businesses flourish and well-paid jobs are created.
The Minster would do well to take notes at this point, because Labour has committed to such investment, through a national investment bank and the bank of the north, to address specifically those areas left behind after decades of regional decline. Our national and regional development banks would help unlock £500 billion of investment and lending to small and medium-sized enterprises, including £250 billion of capital investment in the infrastructure that we urgently need and to help prevent economic slowdown. The regional focus of development banks would enable the Government to make sure that investment and lending is spread around the country, not just siphoned into the south, and that it benefits from local knowledge and expertise, thus ensuring that no area in Britain is left behind. Our bank of the north would also unlock the potential of the north of England, with a push to deliver the sort of infrastructure and investment that it has been deprived of for far too long.
We have also committed to ensuring that our workforce have the skills that business needs in a modern economy, through reinstating the education maintenance allowance and maintenance grants for poorer students, which would be funded by a corporation tax rate of 21%. That is the kind of intervention businesses are looking for—policies with a substantive impact on a company’s ability to do and develop business, not simply cuts to the headline rate of corporation tax.
The cut to corporation tax brought about by clause 45 is not the best use of public money to support businesses in the UK. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to join us in the Lobby to vote in favour of amendment 162.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made some fantastic comments earlier on new clause 10, which relates to the patent box. The new clause would require the Chancellor to publish an independent review of the efficacy and value for money of the patent box legislation. The report would have to make an assessment of, first, the size and nature of the companies taking advantage of the patent box legislation; secondly, the impact of the patent box legislation on research and innovation in the UK, including supporting evidence; and, thirdly, the cost-effectiveness of the patent box legislation in incentivising research and development compared with other policy options. My hon. Friends and I are, of course, supportive of Government action to incentivise R and D, but we are not convinced that the patent box legislation has been efficient thus far in achieving that. We are not alone. Many commentators criticised the patent box, even before its introduction in 2012. The IFS has stated that the
“Patent Box is poorly targeted at research as the policy targets the income which results from patented technology, not the research itself…to the extent that a Patent Box reduces the tax rate for activity that would have occurred in the absence of government intervention, the policy includes a large deadweight cost.”
Rob Marris
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will seek to be brief. On new clause 10, I am in favour of evidence-based policy making. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) says that the patent box legislation and tax break have been helpful. That may be true, but we do not know. What we do know is that the National Audit Office looked at something like 1,200 tax reliefs and found that the Treasury was only monitoring the efficaciousness of fewer than 300 of them. I do not think that the patent box was part of that, so I support new clause 10 because it might tease out the evidence.
Mark Field
I think there has been some misunderstanding about exactly what the patent box was designed to do. It was not designed solely to promote research and development, as many similar incentives that come through, year on year, in Budgets are designed to do. It was very much an attempt to incentivise companies at the second stage—in other words, companies that already had some intellectual property that was difficult to quantify—as opposed to directly at the research and development side. I think it is slightly unfair to suggest that there is no evidence that that has worked, and I think that the patent box is being looked at in a different light to that which was intended by those who put it into play.
Rob Marris
I agree that it is designed to help some companies in their early stages, but with the effluxion of time, those companies should pass through the pipeline and we should see the fruit of their endeavours, helped indirectly by taxpayer support. The evidence should be coming through now. We could not have looked after one year to see whether it had been effective, but now that it has been around for a few years, we can.
I move on to amendment 177. I was amazed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he would be prepared to examine the question of having a turnover tax instead of corporation tax. The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) said the same thing. I absolutely agree, and I have long advocated looking at that, precisely because of tax avoidance. If it turns out to be the case that Apple has been avoiding tax in the United Kingdom, it would not have been able to do that so successfully if we had had a turnover tax rather than a corporation tax.
I have to say to the hon. Member for Leeds North West that I am a bit bemused. He said tonight that the leader of his party had set up a review of corporation tax, but the leader of his party has also tabled amendment 177 —supported, as far as I can tell, by the hon. Gentleman—which would abolish corporation tax completely for the financial year 2017, without bringing in a turnover tax instead. It seems a very strange amendment to table.
Greg Mulholland
As I think I made clear, amendment 177 is a probing amendment, which is designed entirely to make that point. We share the view that the reduction of corporation tax is flawed, but through this amendment we are saying that it needs to be done in a better way. It is a probing amendment and we will not be voting on it, but it is time that we had that debate and put something better in place.
Rob Marris
It is a strange way to do a probing amendment. I am not saying that it is wrong; that is not for me to say. However, it is common for the Opposition to table new clauses or amendments—as with those that we are considering tonight, such as new clause 10—that are designed to produce evidence. Presumably, the hon. Gentleman’s party will be looking at such evidence in its review. If the House could produce that evidence, it would speed up the process and help all of us towards evidence-based policy making.
On new clause 5, interestingly, I think that the Scottish National party reveals its hand; it is not much concerned about greenhouse gas emissions from oil production, let alone from burning oil. We saw the same thing last year in the debate on air passenger duty, when the SNP was all in favour of loads more people flying, despite what it does to the environment. The tenor of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) was that she wants the taxation of oil and gas cut. Essentially, she is advocating indirectly, yet again, for another bung for Scotland from English taxpayers. The SNP Government have the power to put up taxes in Scotland and fail to do so, but they want English taxpayers to give them a bigger bung.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman may have heard my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan) say that 50% of the supply chain companies that would be affected are actually based south of the border. This would benefit companies across the UK. The Scottish Government have been incredibly good at reaching their climate change targets. They have worked very hard on renewable electricity. The only problem is that the Conservative Government are getting in our way.
Rob Marris
I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that, and I also heard the hon. Lady say, when she was moving new clause 5, that she did not even realise that that was the case. Paradoxically for them, I support the new clause and I hope it is agreed to. It looks attractive to me because such a review could lead to a situation in which taxation on oil and gas is increased appropriately. We will not know until we have the evidence, so let us have the review.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I will start by responding to the Opposition’s amendments and new clauses, before I turn briefly to those tabled by the Government.
Amendment 162 would require the Government to remove clause 45 from the Bill. That would stop the cut in corporation tax going ahead, because the clause will cut the rate of corporation tax to 17% with effect from 1 April 2020. Lower corporation tax rates enable businesses to increase investment. We cannot agree with the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who speaks for the Opposition on this matter. Lower rates enable businesses to take on new staff, increase wages or reduce prices. That is borne out by receipts data. The House may be interested to know that onshore corporation tax receipts have risen by more than 20% since 2010, despite the lowering of corporation tax rates. The Treasury and HMRC have modelled the economic impact of the corporation tax cuts delivered since 2010 and those announced at Budget 2016. The modelling suggests that the cuts could increase long-run GDP by more than 1%, or almost £24 billion in today’s prices.
The hon. Lady asked whether business investment has grown. It has increased by 30% since 2010. She mentioned foreign direct investment. In fact, only last week, the Department for International Trade reported a record number of inward investment projects in 2015-16, with over 80,000 new jobs created by more than 2,000 FDI projects. Again, we cannot agree with her criticism.
George Kerevan
The Minister mentions that the Treasury has modelled the impact of tax cuts. Is this the same Treasury model that predicted the collapse of the UK economy in the hours after Brexit?
Jane Ellison
Given the SNP’s track record on predicting the oil price, the hon. Gentleman should think carefully before digging—
Jane Ellison
No, I will continue because I want to move on to the points made by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles.
On amendment 177, I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris). He was quite correct in his analysis of what the amendment would do. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) that it is a probing amendment, but it would indeed cancel the charge for corporation tax in the 2017-18 financial year, depriving the Government of over £45 billion of corporation tax receipts in that year alone. I of course take the point that he wants support for small business and so on, but we are doing a great deal—for example, the business rates package, which will come into effect next spring. For fairly obvious reasons, we cannot support such a loss to the Exchequer.
New clause 5 was tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), but moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). It calls on the Government to publish a review of corporation tax rates and investment allowances applicable to oil and gas-producing companies in the UK. The UK Government remain 100% behind the oil and gas sector and the thousands of workers and families it supports, but a further review into oil and gas taxes would not serve any useful purpose at this time because the Government have recently carried out such an exercise. In 2014, the Government published “Driving investment: a plan to reform the oil and gas fiscal regime”. It set out the Government’s long-term plan to ensure that the fiscal regime continues to support the objective of maximising the economic recovery of oil and gas, while ensuring a fair return on those resources for the nation. The Government have remained consistent in their approach.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
One of the things to support the oil and gas industry that the Government have talked about is offering loan guarantees to companies experiencing financial stress. Will the Minister tell the House how that process is going and how many companies have received loan guarantees?
Jane Ellison
That issue was explored in some detail in Committee, so I will not respond on it now.
I want to make the important point that the changes introduced by the Finance Bill will provide the right conditions to maximise the economic recovery of the UK’s oil and gas resources by lowering sector-specific tax rates, updating the current system of allowances and expanding the types of activity that can generate financial relief. Another important point often stated—indeed, it has been made by many people who work in the sector and by investors in it—is that stability and certainty in the tax regime are major factors in making investment decisions. For that reason, we do not think it is right to have another review. Such a review could create further uncertainty at a time when it is not right for the industry, and it could delay investment. I therefore urge Members to reject new clause 5.
Jane Ellison
No. I am sorry, but I want to move on to new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles. It proposes an independent review into the efficacy of the taxation of securitisation companies. The Government do not consider that necessary. Regulations introduced under a Labour Government in 2006 applied specific corporation tax rules to the profits of securitisation companies. The regulations contain several anti-avoidance tests. As announced in the Budget, HMRC is reviewing these regulations to reflect recent changes to accounting standards and market developments. A consultative working group, made up of independent professional advisers specialising in securitisations, HM Treasury officials and HMRC technical specialists, has met four times since September 2015 and is looking carefully at a range of issues. Revised regulations developed with the group are expected to be published in draft for public consultation later this year or early next year. As this review is already under way, a further assessment is not required.
On Government amendments 152 and 153, clause 63 and schedule 9 make changes to ensure that the patent box operates in line with the newly agreed international framework resulting from the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting action plan. As currently drafted, the changes in the Bill could result in different definitions of the term “qualifying residual profit” applying to the same parts of the patent box legislation. The amendments address that problem by providing a coherent and consistent definition for that phrase.
I will comment briefly on Opposition new clause 10. The new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish within six months of the passing of the Bill an independent report giving an assessment of the value for money and efficacy of the patent box. The Government do not support the new clause. We only now have full data for the first year of the patent box, and as such the report required by the new clause would not take into account the revisions to the regime made by the Bill. The proposed one-off publication would also fall short of the plans the Government already have in place to publish annual official statistics on the patent box.
The hon. Lady mentioned that she wished to see more evidence of the impact of the patent box. It is worth noting that, for example, GSK recently attributed a £275 million investment to the UK’s competitive tax regime and specifically mentioned the patent box as a reason to invest.
A number of Government amendments have been tabled to clause 65 and schedule 10, which legislate to counteract avoidance involving hybrid mismatches. The amendments make changes to the legislation to ensure that it works as intended and does not create unintended impacts in terms of its interaction with other areas of the UK tax system. The amendments are necessary to secure the forecast yield from the measures.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made a typically thoughtful intervention. He mentioned turnover tax versus profits tax—I suspect that is a theme to which he might return. It is worth noting that a turnover tax can produce unfair outcomes, such as penalising businesses that make a loss and those in competitive markets. As I say, I am sure it is an issue to which he may well return.
The Government are committed to making our tax system fundamentally fair, ensuring that people and businesses pay what they owe and contribute to our nation’s success. I therefore once again urge the House to reject the amendments and new clauses tabled by the Opposition.
Kirsty Blackman
I will press new clause 5 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
“dual territory double deduction (in Chapter 11 of Part 6A) | section 259KAA.” |
“excessive PE deduction (in Chapter 11 of Part 6A) | section 59KAA.” |
“PE jurisdiction (in Chapter 11 of Part 6A) | section 259KAA(3)(a)” |
“relevant investment fund (in Part 6A) | section 259NZA” |
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: 70% 50% 35% 87.5% 58.75% 40% 100% 60% 40% 105% 62.5% 40% 125% 77.5% 55% 140% 85% 55% 150% 90% 60% 200% 115% 75% 70% 50% 35% 87.5% 58.75% 40% 100% 60% 40% 105% 62.5% 40% 125% 77.5% 55% 140% 85% 55% 150% 90% 60% 200% 115% 75%
New clause 12—Report on the impact of the criminal offences relating to offshore income, assets and activities—
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within one year of the coming into force of the provisions in TMA 1970 relating to criminal offences relating to offshore income, assets and activities introduced by section 165 of this Act publish a report on the impact of the introduction of these offences.
(2) The report must include, but need not be limited to, information about—
(a) the number of persons who have been charged with offences under each of sections 106B, 106C and 106D of TMA 1970;
(b) the number of persons who have been convicted of any such offence;
(c) the average fine imposed; and
(d) the number of people upon whom a custodial sentence has been imposed for any such offence.
New clause 13—Report into the UK Tax Gap—
‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within one year of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish a report, in consultation with stakeholders, on the UK Tax Gap.
(2) The report must include the following—
(a) details of the UK Tax Gap (including individual breakdowns for figures relating to tax avoidance and tax evasion) for the financial years—
(i) 2015-16;
(ii) 2014-15;
(iii) 2013-14;
(iv) 2012-13; and
(v) 2011-12;
(b) a detailed summary of the model used by HMRC for estimating the UK Tax Gap;
(c) an assessment of the efficacy of HMRC’s performance in relation dealing with the UK Tax Gap, including—
(i) a breakdown of specific HMRC departments or units dealing with investigation and enforcement matters in relation to the UK Tax Gap;
(ii) details of the numbers of staff in each of the years listed in paragraph (a) who are located within departments or units dealing with investigation and enforcement matters in relation to the UK Tax Gap;
(iii) details of the budgets allocated to departments or units dealing with investigation above; and
(iv) details of the numbers of prosecutions or the amount of tax recovered in each financial year listed in paragraph (a) as a result of the work of HMRC departments or units dealing with investigation and enforcement matters in relation to the UK Tax Gap in those financial years.
(d) a review of the impact on tax revenues of requiring non-public organisations involved in public procurement processes to—
(i) be registered in the UK for tax purposes;
(ii) have paid UK tax for a period of at least five years prior to the date the relevant contract is awarded;
(iii) publish full details of beneficial ownership for the period of five years prior to the date the relevant contract is awarded; and
(iv) provide company accounts (including those of any beneficial owners) for the period of five years prior to the date the relevant contract is awarded.
(e) a comprehensive assessment of the efficacy of the General Anti Abuse Rule in discouraging tax avoidance;
(f) an assessment of the impact on tax revenues of introducing a set of minimum standards in relation to tax transparency for all British crown dependencies and overseas territories including (but not limited to)—
(i) placing a statutory duty on British crown dependencies and overseas territories to observe a system of good governance and practice in relation to tax enforcement; and
(ii) requiring British crown dependencies and overseas territories to maintain a public register of owners, directors, major shareholders and beneficial owners;
(g) an assessment of the impact on tax revenues of establishing a public register of all trusts located within the UK, British Crown Dependencies and overseas territories, including but not limited to—
(i) details of the names of beneficiaries to such trusts;
(ii) details of the addresses of beneficiaries to such trusts;
(iii) details of assets held by such trusts;
(iv) details of any trustees registered within the UK who have transferred that main residence to non-UK jurisdictions;
(v) details of tax avoidance schemes involving trusts which are currently disclosed to the HMRC.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the “UK Tax Gap” means the difference in any financial year between the amount of tax HMRC should be entitled to collect and the tax actually collected in that financial year which derives from tax avoidance and tax evasion.
Government amendments 136 and 137.
Amendment 167, in clause 163, page 293, line 25, leave out “may” and insert ”must”.
Amendment 168, in page 293, line 41, leave out “may” and insert ”must”.
Amendment 171, in clause 165, page 295, line 9, at end insert
“and that the person had an honest belief that all of the information included was true and accurate”.
Amendment 172, in page 295, line 26, at end insert
“and that the person had an honest belief that all of the information included was true and accurate”.
Amendment 173, in page 295, line 40, at end insert
“and that the person had an honest belief that all of the information included was true and accurate”.
Amendment 145, in schedule 19, page 589, line 29, at end insert—
‘(6) The Treasury may by regulations require the group tax strategy to include a country-by-country report.
(7) In this paragraph “country-by-country report” has the meaning given by the Taxes (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) (Country-by-Country Reporting) Regulations 2016.”
Amendment 163, in schedule 20, page 609, line 34, at end insert
“or 100% of any fee paid by Q to P in respect of enabling Q to carry out offshore tax evasion or non-compliance”.
Amendment 164, in page 609, line 40, at end insert
“or 100% of any fee paid by Q to P in respect of enabling Q to carry out offshore tax evasion or non-compliance”.
Amendment 165, in schedule 21, page 618, leave out lines 27 to 34 and insert—
Amendment 166, in page 621, leave out lines 8 to 15 and insert—
Amendment 170, in schedule 22, page 627, line 5, leave out “10%” and insert “15%”
Roger Mullin
To those with little knowledge of Scottish limited partnerships, it may seem strange that I rise in this House to move new clause 7 in my name and those of my colleagues, but, despite what the name suggests, Scottish limited partnerships have limited connection to Scotland, and none to the Scottish Parliament. They were introduced in 1907 by the Chancellor of day, Herbert Asquith; despite rumours to the contrary, I was not present at the debates at the time, but the regulation, operation and dissolution of SLPs remain the exclusive preserve of Westminster, hence our moving this new clause.
Scottish limited partnerships have their own distinct legal personality. As a result, SLPs can, for example, hold assets, borrow money and enter into contracts. However, Asquith could never have foreseen that they would become a financial vehicle abused by international criminals and tax dodgers.
Great credit must go to the journalists of The Herald newspaper, particularly David Leask, for doggedly uncovering the truth about SLPs—and isn’t it good that for once we can praise journalism of the highest order delving into important matters, rather than merely dealing in tittle-tattle? Although some users of SLPs no doubt operate appropriately and responsibly, it is claimed that up to 95% of SLPs are mere tax evasion vehicles, including for criminal assets.
While SLPs may be registered in Scotland, they are often owned by partners based in the Caribbean or other jurisdictions that ensure ownership secrecy and low, or no, tax regimes. People operating outside the UK are exploiting opaque ownership structures to hide their true ownership. As Oxfam, too, has recently pointed out, brokers in countries such as Ukraine and Belarus are specifically marketing SLPs as “Scottish zero per cent. tax firms.”
The number of SLPs is growing apace. Data from Companies House revealed by The Herald show 25,000 were in place by the autumn of 2015 and new registrations have been increasing by 40% year-on-year since 2008.
To give an example of what can happen, in 2014 allegations emerged that SLPs had been used to funnel $1 billion out of banks in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova. The use of an SLP and a bank account in an EU country allows dodgy groups, for example from the ex-Soviet Union, to move their ill-gotten gains to tax havens under the cloak of respectability.
I am aware that the Scottish Government’s Finance Secretary, Derek Mackay, has recently written to the UK Government about SLPs. He sensibly pointed out in his letter that
“it is critical that due diligence checks are able to be made when SLPs are initially registered and when there are changes in partners, and that penalties are imposed on partners where the SLP does not comply with the relevant legislation”.
He went on to point out:
“The threat of serious organised crime does not respect borders and with the significant increase in cyber crime, it is essential that we take every step open to us to reduce this threat as much as possible”.
To that end, our new clause seeks an urgent review of SLPs that would, importantly, include taking evidence from the Scottish Government, from HMRC and from interested charities. We have crafted the new clause in the hope it will attract cross-party support, and I see no reason why anyone, other than those interested in encouraging criminality and tax evasion, would wish to oppose a review of this nature. I therefore urge the Minster to accept our new clause.
Rob Marris
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I missed him saying this, but I do not think I did. Subsection (2) of his new clause states:
“The review must take into account the views of the Scottish Government, HMRC and interested charities.”
Is it because of the nature of SLPs that the new clause does not make reference to the Government of Wales and the Government of Northern Ireland?
Roger Mullin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Technically, the SLPs are registered in Scotland, but they have ownership in tax havens all over the world and will therefore operate differently, given the way in which they were set up in 1907. As far as I am aware, the arrangements have not been reviewed in any significant detail since then.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making the powerful case that some SLPs are being used for criminal or money-laundering purposes. Those are serious crimes and they should be reported. Has he reported them? Is not this an enforcement issue?
Roger Mullin
It is certainly a very important issue, but I think it would be better if we could get the Government to carry out the kind of detailed scrutiny that would enable them to enact the necessary legislation. Their voice would be far more powerful than mine in this regard.
I should also like to pass comment on amendment 145, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), which we will certainly be supporting. I am sure that she will have much more to say about it in a moment. It is a modest amendment to encourage much-needed country-by-country reporting for corporations, and I look forward to hearing her remarks. She can be assured that her actions have the full support of Members on these Benches. Similarly, we hope that the Opposition will press new clause 13 to a vote. We also intend to support that proposal.
This whole section dealing with tax evasion is very important, and it is vital that the UK as a whole lives up to its responsibility to ensure that we do not get a name for encouraging tax dodgers. I want to mention the remarkable and brave journalist Roberto Saviano, who has been admired for exposing the murderous criminal underworld of the Italian mafia. In a recent article in The Daily Telegraph, he warned that the UK financial world was effectively allowing what he called “criminal capitalism” to thrive. Surely we must take steps today to ensure that that is not the case.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
In speaking to amendment 145 today, I am grateful for the chance once again to put the case that large multinationals should co-operate with public country-by-country reporting in the UK so that we can all gain greater insight into the trading activities that determine the amount of corporation tax being paid.
As a new member of the Public Accounts Committee in February, I heard first hand Google and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs try to explain how £130 million represented a good deal after a decade’s-worth of unpaid taxes and reasons to justify non-payment. This cross-party Committee of the House felt that the way in which global multinationals play the system denies a fair take for HMRC, having an impact on our public services, and is unfair to British taxpayers and businesses, for whom such a complicated organisation of tax affairs is not an option.
Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does the issue not go further than that? Our constituents’ money generates the revenues and therefore the profits of such companies. It is not just unfair to them because they pay their taxes; their money funds the profits that generates the taxation that ought to be paid to the Revenue.
Caroline Flint
I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a former colleague on the PAC, on his promotion.
Caroline Flint
The Chair of the PAC has corrected me. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right; it is almost a double whammy. Customers of such companies pay for their services in good faith and expect, as both taxpayers and consumers, big companies to play fair by them and by the country in which they operate.
The PAC is not alone in worrying about how such companies organise themselves. Around the world, people and their Governments are questioning the loopholes and convoluted legal arrangements that create inaccurate descriptions of multinationals’ trading activities in individual countries. The problem is not confined to tech firms such as Google, but their massive global presence has exposed the fault lines of an old-fashioned tax structure that has not kept up with today’s online business world. Many of today’s high-tech household names were not always so big or so profitable. The investigation into Google began under the previous Labour Government, and the coalition Government continued the work to get on top of these relatively new business models, both nationally and internationally. Tax policy is not easy. Once one tax loophole is closed, another one opens up.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend’s work on this issue over a long period of time. Does she share my concern that even when the Government have tried to take the initiative, such as through the diverted profits tax—the so-called Google tax—that has not delivered the expected revenues? Indeed, Google does not pay a great deal through that tax. A measure such as that proposed by my right hon. Friend would clearly help to make companies do the right thing.
Caroline Flint
I hope so, because transparency is an important ingredient in ensuring that the rules we apply have some bite. It sometimes seems as though we are trying to catch jelly.
The whole debate has brought into question the legal and moral difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. Companies often rightly defend themselves on grounds of working within the rules, but politicians and civil servants are often caught out by clever manipulation of those rules. That is not illegal but cannot be said to be in the spirit of what was expected.
I have no illusions about having a perfect tax system. Keeping one step ahead is a never-ending task for modern tax authorities. I welcome the Government’s introduction at HMRC of country-by-country tax reporting, which is now up and running, and I agree with the Minister’s summer announcement that those who advise individuals and companies on their tax affairs will be subject to greater accountability for their actions when wrongdoing is exposed.
However, public transparency can make a real difference in ensuring fair taxation and fair play. That is why, with the support of PAC colleagues and cross-party support from across the House, I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill in March to legislate for public country-by-country reporting. The backing I received spurred me on to try to amend the Finance Bill in June, gaining the support of eight parliamentary parties: Labour—I thank Front-Bench spokespeople past and present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), for their support—the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Ulster Unionist party, the United Kingdom Independence party, the Green party, the independent hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), and a number of Conservative MPs, too. Oxfam, Christian Aid, Save the Children, ActionAid, the ONE campaign and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development joined our efforts, adding an important and necessary dimension to the argument for public country-by-country reporting.
Meg Hillier
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on her sterling work in raising this issue up the agenda. Does she agree that if the Government were to adopt this amendment, they would be setting a tone for other parts of the world? We have had a lot of interest from around Europe and elsewhere about the work being done in Parliament and by our Government, and adopting this would really set the example.
Caroline Flint
I agree with my hon. Friend on that. I commend her work as the Chair of our Committee and the work she has done with other public accounts committees in other countries, because there is an appetite for doing more in this area and we are leading the way. We can do that from our House of Commons Committees, but we hope today that we can give some added muscle to the Government to lead the way in this important area, too.
I talked about the charities and organisations working in the development sphere, because I am seeking tax justice not only here, but for those developing countries that lose out too. I have said it before but it is worth saying again: if developing countries got their fair share of tax, it would vastly outstrip what is currently available through aid. The lack of tax transparency is one of the major stumbling blocks to their self-sufficiency. My thanks also go to the Tax Justice Network, Global Witness and the business-led Fair Tax Mark, as well as to tax experts Richard Murphy and Jolyon Maugham, QC, who have helped me to make the case and to get the wording right to amend legislation. This proposal demonstrates the widespread view that bolder measures to hold multinationals to account are necessary.
John Redwood
Is not the bigger issue: where should the profit be fairly struck? Where was the value added? Where did the work take place? Where is the intellectual property residing? Getting transparency is one thing, but we could still get transparency for an answer that we do not like.
Caroline Flint
There is a debate about where best to recoup the money from those who trade and the profits they make. Different options are available, but perhaps that is a wider debate for another day. The BEPS—Base Erosion and Profit Shifting—debate was partly about addressing that, but transparency has to be at the heart of all this, whatever system we set up to identify what is a fair contribution for business. I hope that my amendment will be supported and will be one small step forward.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend knows that I support this amendment and the wonderful work she does. Does she remember all the difficulties we had with the banking sector and the people who were supposed to be the auditors—these great companies that are specialising in obscurity, hiding ownership and moving ownership? Surely this must go in tandem with taking on those big people who did not audit the banks properly. They are the same people who allow these big companies to evade taxation.
Caroline Flint
My hon. friend is right about that. As the Parliament that represents the people of this country, we have a duty not to allow markets to be unfettered, but to provide a framework in which they should operate, work, be successful and do the right thing. I must say that there are companies doing the right thing. Increasingly, companies are volunteering to do the right thing by publishing the sort of information that I am asking to be made more public today.
Caroline Flint
I will give way once more, but I am conscious that other people wish to speak.
Rob Marris
Can my right hon. Friend confirm my understanding, or correct me if I am wrong, that what she is seeking in this amendment would not cause any burden to business because the information is already being gathered and reported but is not then being published? Her amendment seeks merely to get that which is already gathered and reported to be published.
Caroline Flint
That is correct.
I was hopeful for my June amendment, because since the 2015 general election, the Government had, on a number of occasions indicated their support for public country-by-country reporting, and I welcome that. I am grateful to the former Financial Secretary, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as his approach was always constructive as we sought the best way to proceed.
At the debate in June, four days after the EU referendum, the Minister and others were concerned that introducing my amendment at that time might put UK multinationals at a competitive disadvantage for reputational reasons. I have no doubt that a number of the businesses to which my amendment would apply have already suffered reputational damage and more transparency could actually enhance their standing. To the Government’s credit, the UK was the first to introduce public registers of beneficial ownership, and others followed. Backing public country-by country reporting is an opportunity to show leadership again. Indeed, it is a pro-business measure. This kind of reporting already exists within the extractive sector and in financial services. Some companies are ahead of the curve and have started to publish this information. I am talking about companies such as SSE, the energy supplier, and the cosmetics retailer Lush, which operates in 49 different countries. The Government also said that, although they supported the principle, they would prefer to move ahead with others rather than alone.
As the Government make plans to leave the European Union, which may not be all smooth sailing, I do appreciate Ministers’ caution. I am grateful to the new Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), for the constructive dialogue that we have had over the past two months. I am grateful, too, to my colleagues from the Public Accounts Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), and the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills)— for their advice and support during the recess, and I thank all those who have signed amendment 145.
I hope that the Government will regard this amendment as a friendly proposal. If it is passed today, the Commons will enshrine in law support for the principle of public country-by-country reporting with the power for the Government to introduce when the time is most appropriate. That sends a very powerful message, confirming the UK’s leading role in addressing tax evasion and avoidance and providing the Government with the tools to move quickly, when the time is right, without the need for primary legislation.
Last week, the European Commission served a €13 billion tax bill on tech giant Apple. Although the rate of corporation tax in Ireland is low at 12.5%, the Commission concluded that Apple had, in effect, paid 1% corporation tax from 2003 and a tiny 0.005% in corporation tax since 2014. I am afraid that that implies that even low corporation tax rates are no guarantee that a country will collect its rightful share. In this case, €13 billion is equivalent to paying £50 of tax on every £1 million of profits. Apple is entitled to defend its position, but the case highlights the need for more transparency in multinational business affairs.
Finally, having listened to the Government’s concerns and shared with them my arguments for today’s amendment, I hope that the House can come together and make UK public country-by-country reporting a matter not of if, but when.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I do not intend to detain the House for an unduly lengthy period of time, because I know that everyone wants to get to bed before midnight. I want to set out why country-by-country reporting is so very important, and why the whole culture of tax avoidance by big business and multinationals is something that we cannot condone or tolerate.
People ask what is wrong with an organisation such as Apple organising its tax affairs to its best possible advantage. After all, is that not the principle of taxation—that there is no equity in taxation and that only the literal taxation rules should apply? However, my concern is that the conduct of Apple is unacceptable for three key reasons. If a big business organises its tax affairs so that it basically pays no tax whatsoever, then it is inevitably warping the free market, because it is getting an unfair tax advantage, or a tax advantage that gives it a competitive advantage over other enterprises that are paying tax on their profit. For me, that is a really serious issue.
The other issue with Apple in Ireland is that to have a special deal for one business that does not apply to everyone else is counter to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, which is that everyone should be treated the same—be they a cleaner at Apple or Apple itself. What is offensive is if a cleaner in the office is paying more in tax than the massive, profitable enterprise whose offices they are cleaning.
Let me continue with the case of Apple. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made a powerful point. If it has created all this intellectual property, he asked what was wrong with its not being caught in the UK tax net. My answer is that that intellectual property was in fact created in Silicon Valley, but is the organisation paying tax in Silicon Valley? Is it paying tax in America? No, it is not. It has set up a clever structure. Early in its evolution as a business—some 10 or 20 years ago—it sold its outside American intellectual property rights for $1, or some other small sum, to a Bermuda company, which would then have a conduit through Ireland to invest across the rest of Europe.
The company then checks the box for US tax purposes in respect of everything below Bermuda so that, from the Internal Revenue Service’s point of view, it looks as though the Bermuda company is the trading company, and because it is a trading company and the only enterprise that there is for US tax purposes, it is not caught by subpart F of the controlled foreign companies regulations, meaning that no tax can be deemed to have to be repatriated to the United States. As a result, the Bermuda enterprise becomes a cash box for reinvestment across the European theatre. Therein lies the unfair competitive advantage.
John Redwood
I remind my hon. Friend that I did not mention the word “Apple” and I expressed no view on Apple’s tax affairs, one way or the other. I asked a question about how we as legislators globally can produce a system that is fair and sensible so that people know what companies should be paying. I have not studied Apple’s tax affairs in details so I would not presume to lecture either for or against what that company does.
Charlie Elphicke
I stand corrected by my right hon. Friend. It is not a question of Apple; it is a question of general US outbound tax planning. That is why country-by-country reporting matters.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I agree with the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but can he confirm my understanding that if the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) had applied in Ireland in the case of Apple, we would have known that very, very large profits were being made by the company, which seems to have existed only on paper, and we would also have known that it was paying a tiny amount of tax? Would not that have been a valuable step forward in understanding what was going on?
Charlie Elphicke
The key issue is that we did know. As I recall, Apple had to report the situation in some investigation by the Senate in the United States. The Senate was wondering why very little tax had been paid by Apple in the United States. If my recollection is not correct, I am sure a fellow Member of this House will correct me. The issue is one of transparency. These things come to light because the US Senate holds an investigation, or some other enterprise or organisation, such as the Public Accounts Committee, carries out an investigation and starts asking questions.
In the previous Parliament, I myself went through the accounts of Google, Amazon and Starbucks and looked at what they were paying as a proportion of profits. That is why I think country-by-country reporting ought to be considered, and on an international basis. It is important that countries act together to make sure that the international tax system is suitably robust for the internet age.
The reason that that matters is that when large enterprises, big businesses and the elites do not pay tax, it affects small businesses. It is the small business rooted in our soil which employs our neighbours and pays its dues that suffers when the competitive advantage, the level playing field and the rule of law are warped in that way. That is my prime concern. Small businesses in my constituency in Dover and Deal are the lifeblood of my local economy and I want them to have a fair crack. I want the towns and regions of this great nation, England, that I represent, and Wales and Scotland to have a fair crack and to be able to come to the fore. Particularly in Brexit Britain, it is important that they are able to come to the fore, to be galvanised and to be part of the leadership of this nation. That is why we need a Britain that works for the 90%, which is the towns and regions of our nations, rather than for big business and the elite 10%. That is important and it is why we need a tax system that works for everyone.
I have been deeply concerned recently when looking at accounts in the car rental industry. Colleagues may recall that Avis was accused of imposing a Brexit tax on people renting its cars. I looked at its accounts and saw that Avis had paid no tax itself. It taxed its British customers but did not seem to pay any British corporation tax on its profits.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful speech about the reasons for tax transparency, but in the case of companies such as Avis, which he mentions, should we not have transparency for one simple reason only—so that consumers can vote with their feet? If they believe that they are purchasing products from companies that are not paying tax in this country or in other countries, they can go and buy those products from other companies that are paying tax.
Charlie Elphicke
That is a very powerful point. This is why transparency matters. If people know that they are being taken for a ride, they do not have to use an organisation that uses a Luxembourg structure, which is a common kind of intermediate structure for pan-European tax planning to organise things so that no tax need be paid.
This is not just about Avis. I had a look at the accounts of Hertz, another large US car rental company that also does not seem to have paid any tax in the past few years. It is hard to tell how it is doing that, and I had to look at the accounts in very great detail. It has some let-out whereby the company does not have to report related-party transactions. One would think that it may well be renting its car fleets through the Luxembourg company or the Netherlands BV that it uses. Hertz uses a Netherlands BV and Avis uses a Luxembourg company to get money out of the UK tax net so that it is not subject to tax on any profit. However, I cannot tell, because we do not have that level of reporting. That is why country-by-country reporting is important, not just as a tax concept but as an accounting concept, so that one can see where the money has gone. Similarly, inter-company loans and borrowings are often at the much higher rate. That is certainly the case with Avis, which was paying more in its inter-company loans than in its borrowings to the bank. That, too, caused me a level of concern. There seemed perhaps to be some trademark royalties in there, or some royalties to do with its internal IT and computer systems, but it was hard to tell because we do not have that granularity in the accounts.
We ought to have a greater level of knowledge, a greater level of reporting, and a greater level of understanding of how money is being paid, the taxes that are due, and the nature of the planning that is being undertaken so that our laws are more robust and we can make sure that everyone in this nation pays a fair share of tax, be they the cleaner or the largest enterprise that is trading. It matters for the rule of law, for a fair and open market, and for a level competitive playing field that all businesses and enterprises are treated the same.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
As a Conservative, I believe that taxes, whether direct or indirect, need to be kept as low as possible, consistent with the need to raise finances for our vital public services and for our national security. Unnecessarily high taxation not only strangles growth and development but means Government taking from those who have earned money, whether through labour, innovation, or capital.
However, the flipside of keeping tax levels low is that everybody must pay their fair share. Aggressive tax avoidance, bending the rules of the tax system to gain an advantage that Parliament never intended, means that a heavier burden falls on others, who are able to keep less of the money that they have earned. This Government are rightly committed to supporting businesses through low taxes—that is why corporation tax is being cut again to 17%—but those taxes do have to be paid.
This Bill therefore addresses many of the ways that companies use to avoid paying their fair level of tax. That includes the amendments that we are debating, tabled by the Government, to reform hybrid mismatches. The amendments will reduce aggressive tax planning, typically involving a multinational group. The introduction of these rules will, in essence, remove the tax advantage arising from the use of hybrid entities and instruments, and ought to encourage more businesses to adopt less complicated, more transparent cross-border investment structures. I look forward to similar rules being introduced by other jurisdictions. However, in line with OECD regulations, the Bill contains provisions for counteraction in the UK where the other country does not counteract the mismatch within its own hybrid mismatch rules. The Bill introduces the new penalty of 60% of tax due that was announced in the Budget, to be charged in all cases successfully tackled by the general anti-avoidance rule.
Government amendments 136 and 137 help to ensure that the changes announced in the Budget work as intended, cracking down further on unscrupulous and aggressive tax avoidance. I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) on country-by-country reporting, as well as those raised so regularly by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). There is widespread and growing agreement that there is a need to move to country-by-country reporting so that the information is out there and available both to national tax authorities and to the wider public. That brings us back to the question of whether the best way to achieve that is for individual countries to act unilaterally or for the UK to move in partnership with our international allies and through a range of international organisations both within and beyond Europe.
Rob Marris
Of course, the Opposition want international action, we want international co-operation and we want our international friends to copy the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), which we hope will be successful tonight. However, we also need to bear it in mind that half the tax havens in the world are British overseas territories. We have a particular responsibility in this regard worldwide. It is not about some sort of moral responsibility—to use the old-fashioned phrase, the white man’s burden—or any of that nonsense. It is to do with the fact that British overseas territories are responsible for half of these shenanigans.
Mike Wood
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but we should also recognise, as I am sure he will, the progress that has been made in recent years to insist on those overseas territories moving into the 21st century so that their tax arrangements comply with what we would expect for international standards. In a globalised world, we must be clear that concerted international effort is needed to stop continued cross-border tax avoidance, evasion or plain old-fashioned aggressive but unscrupulous planning.
The UK Government have done more than any previous Government and more than most of our international allies and competitors to eradicate these practices, and they continue to do so, but of course more must be done and I welcome the reassurances we have heard from the Government that this remains a priority. I am pleased that the Government are now pursuing country-by-country reporting and that it will be discussed at the forthcoming G20 Finance Ministers meeting. This measure will by itself help to increase transparency across multinationals, supporting not only our tax authorities but, perhaps more importantly, those of the developing countries of which we have heard, which are almost literally being robbed of vital sources of income.
In conclusion, the Finance Bill and the amendments tabled to it include both pioneering and bold measures. It will ensure that taxes are paid and that everybody pays their fair share, and I look forward to supporting it this evening.
John Redwood
I remind the House that I have declared in the register of interests that I am a registered investment adviser, but obviously I am not speaking on their behalf in this debate.
It seems to me that there is common ground among all parties in this House that we need to collect a decent amount of tax revenue and that we want to ensure that those who are rich, particularly companies that seem to generate a lot of turnover and possibly profit, pay their fair share. We recognise, I think, that we have to operate in a global market. We are talking about what are usually large corporations that genuinely make different levels of profit and generate different amounts of turnover in different jurisdictions, and that have genuinely complicated arrangements when they switch components, technology, ideas and work between different centres. Even in a service business that does that through electronic communication and digital activity, there may be different people in different centres around the world who contribute to servicing the client and to dealing with the particular product. There are, therefore, genuine issues for the honest company in trying to define and measure precisely where work is done, where added value is greatest and what is a fair attribution.
We as legislators have to understand that complexity and try to come up with a good judgment, collectively and globally between the main jurisdictions, on what is a fair way to instruct those global companies to report in our different jurisdictions so that sensible amounts of tax are captured.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I will speak to a number of amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 12 would require the Government to report within one year on the impact of the criminal offences relating to offshore income assets and activities created by clause 165. Amendments 167 and 168 would make it compulsory, rather than just possible, for HMRC to publish the names of those who hide behind entities such as companies and trusts when committing offshore tax evasion. Amendments 171 to 173 would expand the definition of “reasonable” referred to in clause 165 to include
“an honest belief that all of the information included was true and accurate”,
because the Opposition are concerned that the category of reasonableness is, on its own, far too subjective. Amendments 163 and 164 would strengthen the penalty for enablers of offshore tax evasion to include 100% of the fees received by the enabler of the service—for the lawyers in the Chamber, the principle of just enrichment, as it were. The aim of that is to neutralise somewhat the commercial aspect of the tax avoidance industry.
Amendments 165 and 166 would increase the minimum penalties for inaccuracy, failure to notify a charge to tax or failure to deliver a return, in relation to offshore matters and transfers, by 15% rather than the Government’s suggested 10%. In their consultation “Strengthening civil deterrents for offshore evaders” the Government considered increasing the minimum penalties by 15% rather than 10%. These are probing amendments to find out why the Government opted for a smaller increase than the one that they initially considered.
Up next we have amendment 170, which would increase from 10% to 15% the asset-based penalty introduced by schedule 22. The Government’s consultation on this penalty cited different rates for such asset-based penalties across the world, including in Italy where the penalty is up to 15%. As I will expand on in a moment, the Opposition think that we must be world leaders on stamping out tax avoidance, so I think our penalty should be, at the very least, on a par with precedents across the world. Those penalties are a start, but I would add that in the light of the latest Government consultation on tackling offshore tax evasion, which would introduce a separate offence not covered by the Bill, there appears to be a clear move by stakeholders to suggest that even higher penalties are required. I urge the Government to consider those suggestions carefully.
I confirm Labour’s support of cross-party amendment 145 on public country-by-country reporting, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I place on record my thanks to her for the hard work that she has put into pursuing this important issue. It is testimony to that hard work that many Members across the House—including members of the Public Accounts Committee and more than 60 MPs from eight political parties, as my right hon. Friend illustrated—and organisations outside this House have supported this amendment. I will not go over the ground that she has covered, because she has put her case articulately. The enabling power contained in the amendment would give the UK scope to strengthen its influence on international tax transparency negotiations, and it would build greater consensus.
Finally, new clause 13 would require a comprehensive report into the UK tax gap, which is defined as the difference in any financial year between the amount of tax HMRC should be entitled to collect and the tax that it collects. Such difference derives from tax avoidance and evasion. The contents of the report would be as set out in the new clause, and it would have to be carried out in consultation with stakeholders. It would examine a number of areas relating to tax avoidance in the hope that the Government might review their policy and tailor it to deal adequately with such issues.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Does not new clause 13 expose the idiocy of closing HMRC offices, as the Government are planning to do to 90% of them? Would it not also allow Members to look at the number of staff in HMRC dealing with tax avoidance and set that against the 3,765 staff in the Department for Work and Pensions who deal with £1.2 billion of so-called social security fraud?
Rebecca Long Bailey
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The report is intended to highlight any deficiencies that might be found in HMRC’s resources or structures that affect its ability to tackle tax avoidance.
As Members who read new clause 13 will see, the part relating to HMRC goes into a lot of detail. Briefly, however, the report would be required to cover figures for the UK tax gap for the past five financial years; details of the model used by HMRC for estimating the UK tax gap; an assessment of HMRC’s efficacy in dealing with the UK tax gap; details of the tax revenue benefits for companies engaged in public procurement that are registered in the UK only for tax purposes; an assessment of the efficacy of the general anti-abuse rule in discouraging tax avoidance; consideration of the benefits for tax revenue of introducing a set of minimum standards in tax transparency for all British Crown dependencies and overseas territories; and, finally, an assessment of the impact on tax revenues of establishing a public register of all trusts located within the UK, British Crown dependencies and overseas territories.
The new clauses and amendments we have tabled are necessary now more than ever. I appreciate that we have limited time today, so we will push to a vote only new clause 13. As I have said, we will support my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley should she wish to press her amendment 145. We also support new clause 7, which has been articulately outlined by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin).
On the other amendments, I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to the comments throughout my speech. The Government have ample opportunity outside the scope of the Bill—if, indeed, there is the will—to implement many of my requests. I will explain the rationale behind our various amendment.
The law on tax avoidance has been greatly influenced by the words of Lord Tomlin in the case of the Inland Revenue Commissioners v. the Duke of Westminster in 1935. Lord Tomlin decided that it was the right of every Englishman to organise his affairs so as to minimise his liability for tax. Sadly, that idea fuels the tax avoidance industry even today. In this age of so-called austerity, with pressure on the NHS, the armed forces, our teachers and our young people—the list goes on—quite frankly it is not acceptable for people to seek to avoid their taxes.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have come to agree that tax avoidance should be fought. The trouble is that this Government have failed to tackle the problem head-on, but simply tinkered here and there with piecemeal bits of legislation, and this Finance Bill is no different. We need a real commitment from this Government to an overarching strategy that provides genuine legal teeth to tackle the millionaire tax dodgers and the advisers surrounding them.
To take hon. Members on a little historical, magical mystery tour, in the 1980s, judges, not Parliament, developed a principle that put a dent in the tax avoidance industry—the Ramsay doctrine. The principle provided that artificial tax avoidance schemes should be analysed as a whole, not analysed by each piece separately. That meant that clever tax schemes could be dismantled by taking out all the artificial elements, with what was left being taxed as though the artificial elements had never existed. The effect on tackling tax avoidance schemes was huge.
Unfortunately, case law has moved on over the years, and we have now returned to a world in which tax law is considered to be entirely a matter of statutory interpretation. There are no general principles at work that can be used when interpreting legislation to combat tax avoidance in practice. In addition, our tax statutes are extraordinarily long and very detailed. That is meat and drink to tax specialists. Any Member of the House my age or above may remember the “Peanuts” cartoons. In one episode, Linus says, “Now I know the rules, I know how to get round them.” Linus could have been a tax lawyer.
Tax lawyers love playing with the rules, and we should not underestimate the expertise and determination of the tax avoidance community. In fact, one tax law specialist recently told me something really harrowing about a firm of accountants in the 1990s. A specific piece of legislation had been drafted to tax any trust that shifted offshore. An exception to that rule arose if one of the trustees died and the trust shifted offshore as a consequence. Those accountants canvassed a cancer ward to see whether the relatives of people dying of cancer would be prepared to have their dying family member signed up to act as a trustee of their clients’ trusts. They sought reassurances that the patient would die soon and promised to pay a small fee. That is an extreme case, but is an example of the depths to which people will sink to avoid paying their taxes and of how loopholes can be found in the depths of legislation.
Jane Ellison
It has been a wide-ranging and at times passionate debate. I shall address the Government amendments before addressing the amendments and new clauses tabled by the Opposition.
Clause 155 makes an administrative change to strengthen the procedural efficiency of the GAAR. Amendments 136 and 137 make small technical changes to the clause, which incorporate the new terms introduced by clause 156. The new terms provide a new way of counteracting under the GAAR procedure to enable the same advisory panel opinion to apply to multiple users of marketed tax avoidance schemes. We believe that the changes will streamline the procedure without altering the fundamental test to which taxpayers are subject under the GAAR. They will ensure that a provisional GAAR counteraction will apply equally to all counteraction procedures, and enable tax to be protected for the cases that we intend to address.
Amendment 145, to which the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) spoke, would give the Treasury the power to require groups to publish a country-by-country report showing their profits, taxes paid and other financial information for the countries in which they operate. As she and others acknowledged in the debate, the UK has led international efforts, although the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), who spoke for the Opposition, was, to say the least, miserable about the leadership that the UK has shown. I did not recognise the description she applied, but others were more generous, noting the fact that the UK has rightly led those international efforts to tackle tax avoidance by multinational enterprises, for all the reasons so brilliantly articulated by colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). We all support what he said. The Government have been a firm supporter of greater tax transparency and greater public disclosure of the tax affairs of large businesses. For those reasons, we fully support the intentions of amendment 145 and will support its inclusion in the Bill.
The Government have consistently pushed for a multilateral solution for country-by-country reporting. For example, the Chancellor made the case for looking at this at the G20 in July. Amendment 145 is very much in keeping with that aim and provides the Government with the power to implement when appropriate. It is none the less important that the power is used to deliver a comprehensive and effective model—as was acknowledged by the right hon. Lady—of public country-by-country reporting that is agreed on a multilateral basis. I am sure we will return to this issue and the basis on which we can go forward. It means a model that requires all groups, both UK headquartered and non-UK headquartered, to report accessible information for the full range of countries in which they operate. It is vital for ensuring that the policy intention of greater transparency is delivered. It is also important for ensuring that UK headquartered groups are not put at a competitive disadvantage. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for recognising that concern, as expressed earlier in the year in a previous stage of the Bill, and that disclosure requirements cannot be avoided through group restructuring—another issue that we want to ensure we are on top of.
The Government remain focused on getting international agreement for such a model, as part of their continued efforts to ensure that taxes are paid and paid in jurisdictions where economic activities take place. The right hon. Lady and the House have my assurance that the Government will continue to take every opportunity to champion this agenda at an international level. It is increasingly clear that we move forward with a welcome degree of agreement across this House.
Caroline Flint
I thank the Minister for the Treasury’s decision to support my amendment. I hope we can work together to consider how we can make the journey to introducing this in this country, with others, a real possibility in the future.
Jane Ellison
Indeed. We have seen, in other areas where we have shown leadership, how much can happen in a very short space of time, so we are optimistic that we can make progress with a welcome degree of consensus across the House.
Amendments 163 to 168, 170 to 173 and new clause 12 all concern penalties for offshore tax avoidance and evasion. Clause 161 and schedule 20 create new civil penalties for those who have deliberately assisted taxpayers to evade UK inheritance tax, capital gains tax or income tax via offshore means. They would introduce a penalty of up to 100% of the tax evaded and public naming for the most serious cases. Amendments 163 and 164 would include within the penalty provisions the option of charging a penalty of up to 100% of any fee paid by a taxpayer to the enabler for the enabling service received.
Fees charged by organisations can take a vast array of different structures and formats. Without a clear definition of what constitutes fees, or how the fee relates to the services provided, we believe it would be disproportionately burdensome for HMRC to apply and use such a penalty. A penalty based on tax lost is a much clearer and more easily defined concept, which better meets the objective of sending a strong and clear deterrent.
Amendments 165 and 166 would increase the minimum penalties chargeable for deliberate offshore tax evasion. Again, the Government have significantly increased sanctions that can be applied for offshore tax evasion. However, we have to balance that against the need to maintain the proportionality of our penalties and retain the incentive for taxpayers to comply voluntarily and co-operate with HMRC, an area in which we have seen considerable activity. We therefore believe that the ranges we have set out provide a good balance. However, as with all of our penalties, we keep the rates under review.
Amendments 167 and 168 would make it compulsory for HMRC to publish details of those tax defaulters who meet the relevant criteria. Obviously, public naming incentivises evaders to come forward voluntarily and co-operate, but it allows the naming of those who refuse to co-operate with HMRC. In the vast majority of cases, we would expect HMRC to name those who meet the criteria. However, mandatory publication would be inappropriate in some particular exceptional circumstances, or perhaps when there are wider consequences, such as economic market impacts from the information becoming public.
Clause 164 and schedule 22 introduce a new asset-based penalty for the most serious cases of deliberate onshore tax evasion, where the tax loss exceeds £25,000, and would levy a penalty of up to 10% of the value of the asset connected to the evasion in addition to any other tax-geared penalties and interest due.
Kirsty Blackman
It is not entirely clear. Will the Minister let us know whether she will support the inclusion of new clause 7 on the basis that, as she has just made clear, it would be a good idea and important to do so? If she is not willing to support it, will she justify why the Government are willing to leave the loophole undiscussed and in place?
Jane Ellison
As I have just laid out, consultation is under way, which provides an opportunity to look at those precise issues. As I said, I invite the SNP to engage with that consultation.
Turning to deal with the lengthy speech and case made for Labour’s new clause 13, which provides for a report on the UK tax gap, the tax gap is an official statistic published each October and it is produced in accordance with a code of practice for official statistics, which assures objectivity and integrity. The methodology is judged by independent third parties to be robust, and it has been intensively reviewed and given a clean bill of health by both the International Monetary Fund and the National Audit Office. There is therefore no need for a report on the tax gap. Furthermore, HMRC publishes a methodological annexe alongside the tax gap publication, which provides details of the data and methodology used to produce estimates of the gap.
I think it fair to say that, in speaking about new clause 13, the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles painted a picture which, on the Government of the House and, I suspect in other parts as well, could be regarded as at the very least ungenerous and in many ways inaccurate, unfair and, indeed, unrecognisable, given the way in which the she downplayed the efforts made by the Government. To call that tinkering at the edges is simply nonsense.
Since 2010, the Government have given HMRC £1.8 billion to tackle evasion, avoidance and non-compliance, and, as I said earlier, over that period HMRC has secured £130 billion in additional tax revenues. We have shown considerable ambition, and, as other Opposition Members have been generous enough to acknowledge, international leadership. I therefore do not accept the criticisms that were voiced from the Opposition Front Bench. It is also worth noting that in the summer Budget of 2015, the Government invested a further £800 million to fund additional work to tackle tax evasion and non-compliance.
No Government, particularly the last Labour Government, have come close to being as ambitious as we have been since 2010 in respect of this important agenda. The fact that there was considerable agreement across the House in the earlier part of the debate, and the fact that the Government have accepted the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Don Valley, gives some weight to our claim that we are beginning to strike a UK consensus about the need to tackle this problem, and we have a chance to continue to make progress. I know that there is an appetite to return to these issues. There is a real desire to see the Government continue to lead internationally on avoidance and evasion, and the House can be reassured that that is exactly what we intend to do.
Mr Speaker
Does the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) wish to respond, which he is permitted, but not required, to do?
Roger Mullin
A few words, Mr Speaker. I merely wish to say that I am incredibly disappointed that the Government have chosen to drag their feet on the issue of Scottish limited partnerships, and that, on the basis of their own arguments, we will press new clause 7 to a vote.
Mr Speaker
That was a commendably pithy speech from the hon. Gentleman, for which I think the House is almost audibly grateful, if I may put it that way.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 140, in clause 125, page 205, line 32, leave out from “after” to end of subsection and insert “1 January 2017”.
Amendment 142, page 205, line 32, leave out “such” and insert
“1 April 2017, or on any prior”.
Amendment 144, page 205, line 32, leave out “such” and insert
“1 April 2018, or on any prior”.
Government amendment 161.
Paula Sherriff
It is a pleasure to open this debate by speaking to new clause 4 and amendments 140 and 144. I thank both Front-Bench teams for ensuring that we have time to debate the issue today. It is, perhaps, appropriate that a female Financial Secretary now sits on the Government Front Bench and has the chance to settle the matter.
It has taken us quite some time to get here. It was in January 2001 that the lower rate of VAT on women’s sanitary products was applied. For that we owe thanks to many women MPs of that era, as well as to the then Minister, Dawn Primarolo, who now sits in the other place. During the passage of the Finance Bill last year, I was proud to lead a cross-party group of today’s women MPs, including many on the Labour Benches, and others such as the hon. Members for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), in demanding that we finish the job, which led the Government finally to address the issue at European level. We should pay particular tribute to the many people outside this place who campaigned so hard on this very important issue, not least Laura Coryton, whose petition attracted hundreds of thousands of signatures.
Following that pressure, the Government accepted another cross-party amendment, this time in the Budget resolutions, for what I understand was the first time in history, and the then Prime Minister persuaded the European Council to issue a communiqué on the matter. The European Commission VAT action plan has now been issued and the Commission intends to table a proposal by the end of this year, though of course the UK has since voted to leave the European Union—off the back of a promise by Vote Leave that such a result would allow us to abolish the tampon tax outside the EU. I gently suggest to Government Members, especially those who campaigned for Brexit, that voting for the amendment would honour that promise, and their constituents might reasonably question why they would oppose it.
Whether we are in or out of the EU, there should be no barrier to ending the tax. There are promises both from this Government and from the winning referendum campaign to do so. The explanatory notes for clause 125, written before the referendum vote, state:
“This clause reduces the VAT rate on the supply of women’s sanitary products from 5% to zero”.
but I hope the Minister will acknowledge that that is not really the case as the Bill stands. The clause does not zero-rate women’s sanitary products; it just provides enabling powers for the Treasury to do so, if it chooses, and at a time of its choosing. That is why I originally tabled what is now amendment 142 in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) spoke to it. The then Financial Secretary—now the Chief Secretary—responded that he was
“confident that by 1 April there should be no reason why the measure is not in place.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2016; c. 146.]
He said that the Government would therefore consider accepting the amendment. Since then, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has tabled his own amendment, which would implement a zero rate from 1 January next year. It is fair to say that there is a cross-party desire to see the promise honoured as quickly as possible.
I acknowledge, however, that the complications of negotiating our exit may make the next tax year, let alone calendar year, a tight deadline for the Government, despite the previous Minister’s confidence. For that reason, I have also tabled amendment 144, which provides for a later deadline of 1 April 2018—in other words, in time for the tax year 2018-19. I believe that this is a very reasonable deadline. By that point, our exit negotiations will be well under way, and the European Commission aims to have reformed its own laws to allow a zero rate by 2018. I reiterate the point made by the Minister in Committee when he said he was confident that by 1 April there should be no reason why this measure is not in place. Amendment 144 gives the Government a full additional year beyond a date that they were confident they could meet. However, should there be any delay, the timescale also allows the Government nearly two years to amend their legislation accordingly with the new dates. The Vote Leave alternative Queen’s Speech included an entire Bill specifically to abolish the tampon tax, but a whole Bill is not necessary given the amendments that we have today, which would allow the Chancellor simply to propose a later deadline in next year’s Finance Bill. The important point, however, is that Ministers should have to explain to this House why any delay was necessary, and we would need to vote to allow that.
The Government have tabled an alternative amendment of their own—amendment 161. While that seems to set 1 April 2017 as a default deadline, it makes it subject to
“the earliest date that may be appointed consistently with the United Kingdom’s EU obligations.”
In short, 1 April next year is not really the deadline at all, and instead we are subject to the Government’s own interpretations of our EU obligations. I must also question the exact wording of the amendment. It does not refer to our obligations as a member of the EU, but just to our “EU obligations”. That seems to leave open the possibility that we might agree to keep a minimum rate of VAT as part of our exit negotiations. When I challenged the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on that earlier today, he certainly did not rule it out. Instead, he reflected that ability to set a zero rate was just one reason why people may have voted to leave, but did not actually pledge to deliver it. I am therefore not convinced that this amendment takes us much beyond the existing clause. Unless the Minister has some very strong arguments to address these points, I will press amendment 144, at least, to a vote.
That brings me to new clause 4, which touches on another issue that it would be helpful if the Minister addressed—the women’s charities that have received funding from the tampon tax fund. This was quite understandably criticised by a lot of feminists, as it used a tax on women to pay for support that they often needed as a result of male violence. None the less, it was still better than nothing. Now it is set to be abolished. Can the Minister give us guarantees of stable future funding for these vital services? As she will have gathered from the wording of the new clause, I am making the point that the Treasury will have raised a considerable amount from women historically from the point in 2001 when the Government first made the decision in principle to apply the lowest rate available.
I would like to press Ministers again on one last issue—that the benefit of zero rates is not always passed on in full by the companies that set the prices. When the Labour Government cut the rate to 5%, they committed to monitoring prices to ensure that the cut benefited women rather than just boosting the bottom lines of the businesses involved. I want to know whether this Government will take similar action. As the Minister may be aware, I have negotiated a deal with the leading retailers whereby they will pass on the cut in full. I hope that she will join me in urging these businesses to do that and to sign up to the agreement. Similarly, she will have heard the appalling reports of women turning up at food banks seeking sanitary protection products because they cannot afford them due to welfare cuts or poverty pay. I have reached an agreement with a major retailer that it will provide some free sanitary protection to food banks within my constituency. Can the Government offer any further such support to other constituencies?
I hope that today we can meet the promises made by European leaders, this Government, and indeed the winning referendum campaign. Anything less is simply not good enough for women. I hope that the Minister will accept at least one of my amendments and make it clear that the days of the tampon tax are nearly over for good.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) for tabling her amendments, for speaking to this issue today and for having campaigned on it so effectively for so many months, if not years.
My amendment 140 would require the removal of VAT on women’s sanitary products to take effect by 1 January 2017. The background is that the former Prime Minister assured the House in March that he had succeeded in persuading the other 27 Heads of Government at the EU Council meeting on 17 and 18 March to allow the United Kingdom Government to respond to popular demand and extend the zero rate for VAT to women’s sanitary products. The former Prime Minister told the House:
“This is an important breakthrough. Britain will be able to have a zero rate for sanitary products”.—[Official Report, 21 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 1246.]
On 24 March this Bill, then the Finance (No. 2) Bill, was published, and clause 125, as it now is—it was originally clause 115—was designed to implement the pledge on the abolition of VAT on women’s sanitary products and the introduction of a zero rate, but when the EU VAT action plan was published on 7 April it did not deliver on what the Prime Minister must have thought he had been promised at EU Council meeting in the previous month.
I tabled a couple of parliamentary questions on the subject. The first was:
“To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, what information his Department holds on the reasons why the EU Action Plan on VAT consultation document issued…on 7 April 2016 omits any reference to the decision of EU Heads of Government that the UK can remove VAT from women’s sanitary products”.
The answer I received was typically helpful from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, then the Financial Secretary, and said:
“The content of the EU VAT Action Plan is a matter for the European Commission. European Council Conclusions welcomed ‘the intention of the Commission to include proposals for increased flexibility for Member States with respect to reduced rates of VAT, which would provide the option to Member States of VAT zero rating for sanitary products’.”
I then asked my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on what date he expected the removal of VAT from women’s sanitary products to take effect, and he replied on 18 April:
“The zero rate of VAT for sanitary products will take effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent.”
There was no mention of any constraint in EU law that would prevent the early implementation of the pledge that the Prime Minister was able to deliver following that European Council meeting.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support he has given to the campaign and for his research, in addition to the work done by my honourable colleagues on the SNP Benches. Does he agree that it does not feel like progress or much like a victory if I still have to pay tax on the tampons I am using today?
Mr Chope
I fully accept what the hon. Lady says. This whole saga illustrates the frustration that many of us have felt in this House for a long time that the European Union works extremely slowly and very deviously. That was what the referendum was all about: it was about taking back control of these decisions to this House and being able to implement decisions quickly, effectively and in accordance with the wishes of the British people. Unfortunately, we have not got an instant departure from the European Union. We have to negotiate our departure and serve article 50 and so on, but in the meantime there is a lot of frustration, I accept. That has been exacerbated by the way the previous Government played down—let us be generous to them—the EU impact in this regard before the referendum. They did not want people to think that there was another reason to vote to leave, so that we could remove VAT from women’s sanitary products.
On Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, my right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary, who is now the Chief Secretary, said:
“The Government are committed to making that change…I am proud that in the Finance Bill we are legislating to enable zero VAT rates for women’s sanitary products.”
I then intervened and said:
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress he has made. Why does clause 115 say that the measure will not come into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent, but is subject to the Treasury introducing a provision at some later stage? Why can we not legislate on this in the Bill without any qualification?”
My right hon. Friend replied:
“It is customary, with changes in VAT rates, to give retailers notice. It is not usual for VAT changes to be put in place on the date of Royal Assent, as notice is usually provided. I reassure my hon. Friend that the intention is to provide a short period of time, following Royal Assent, in which retailers will have an opportunity to adjust prices. This is no desire by the Treasury to kick this into the long grass—we want to make progress on the matter.”—[Official Report, 11 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 102.]
I think that that was a very disingenuous remark, because there was no reference to any EU constraint. The impression given was that it was all being sorted out with the European Union and that it would be delivered through clause 115, as it then was, very quickly. Somebody in the Treasury must have known or suspected that it would not be delivered in the time envisaged or, perhaps, at all, but nobody wanted to disclose that to the British people in the run-up to the referendum. I have heard that an agreement was made between remainers in the then Government and in the Opposition to try to prevent the issue from being raised on the Floor of the House, in the Finance Bill, close to the time of the vote.
Is it not fantastic that we now have the freedom to do these things ourselves, in our own sovereign Parliament, in accordance with the wishes of the people? I hope that the new Treasury team will be much more open and transparent in the way they deal with such issues. If there is an EU constraint, let us say so.
I welcome Government amendment 161, because it says that the measure will take effect after the later of 1 April 2017 or
“the earliest date that may be appointed consistently with the United Kingdom’s EU obligations”,
whatever that might mean. Why, however, was that not included in the Bill to start with? It was never going to be possible for the measure to be implemented at an earlier date than was consistent with our EU obligations. People were led up the garden path: they were led to believe that there was going to be an instant delivery, but we now know that that is not going to happen. I hope that when we come to look at the wider issues of VAT, we will get on with, for example, removing the 5% VAT on domestic fuel, which we in the leave campaign made an issue during the referendum.
It was a long time ago, but it was on 1 April 1973 that VAT was introduced in our country as a requirement of our decision to join the European Union. At that time, the rate was 10% and the yield was £1.5 billion a year. The standard rate was increased in January 2011 and it has been 20% since then, and that raises £100 billion a year. After leaving the European Union, we will be free to set our rates of VAT at whatever level we wish.
John Redwood
Did my hon. Friend note that in the consultation document that the EU issued, not only did it not honour the pledge to our Prime Minister, but it made it very clear that it deeply dislikes discounted rates and zero bands, and so it wanted to take it in the other direction because it thought that countries presuming to give tax relief on products that they considered essential was an obstacle to a genuine single market?
Mr Chope
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It sounds wonderful, does it not, Mr Speaker: an EU VAT action plan? We were led to believe that the action would provide more flexibility, but when one looked at the small print in the action plan, one could see that the whole thing was steered towards more rigidity, harmonisation and uniformity, exactly as my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Again, is it not fantastic that we will now be able to take responsibility for these things ourselves? I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who will be responding to the debate, will take the opportunity to state that from now on the Treasury will be a lot more open in the way it does its business, both with this House and with the people, and that it will not use disingenuous statements to create an impression that is inconsistent with reality.
It does not seem to me that we will be able to make this change lawfully unless and until we have negotiated our exit. I wish that we could, but as somebody who believes in the rule of law, I think that that is the position we are in. But how different it is from the position that we were led to believe we were in prior to the referendum. I wonder why that is!
Kirsty Blackman
I promise that I will speak only briefly, because I know that everybody is keen to get away.
I thank the Government for their movement on this issue already. In my short time as an MP, there has been a major change in VAT on sanitary products, and I appreciate the Government taking that on. We owe huge thanks to the women who have campaigned about this, not only those in the House—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) and other Members from across the House—but all the other women who have put their time and effort into campaigning.
I would like to highlight briefly some of the anomalies that continue in relation to sanitary products and VAT. VAT is still levied on incontinence products. Unless someone fits a very narrow definition of “disabled” under the law, they pay VAT on incontinence products. In the UK, between 3 million and 6 million people suffer from incontinence, and the UK Government receive the VAT from the sale of those products. I do not think that that is right; I think that those individuals should be able to get incontinence products VAT-free, because they are a necessity for those 3 million to 6 million people.
The other anomaly in the system concerns breast pads. If someone who is breastfeeding has an excess supply of milk and is therefore leaking milk, they require breast pads. There are no two ways about it. They absolutely require those pads, or they will be covered in milk. Having done that a number of times myself, I am well aware of the pitfalls.
Alison Thewliss
Having breastfed my children, I well know that circumstance and how it can arise. This points to the need for a wider review of VAT—perhaps at the point of Brexit, or even starting now—on items that have emerged into the market. Breast pumps, for example, are still liable for VAT, whereas formula is not. That has a disproportionate effect on people who choose breastfeeding over formula feeding.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree with my colleague. If we are to encourage breastfeeding and to make it as accessible as possible for people, we need to ensure that the products they require to breastfeed well, and without making too much mess, are appropriately VAT-rated. The interesting thing is that the zero-rating guidance was written a long time ago, and it is not appropriate for today’s society. If the Government were, as my hon. Friend suggests, to commit to undertake a proper review and making sure that people are not unfairly penalised for buying essential, necessary products, I would very much appreciate it.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I rise to support amendments 142 and 144 and new clause 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff). I stress that no deals have been struck with the Government on this issue, although we are open to being flexible and to discussing the matter at length with Ministers. I specifically congratulate my hon. Friend and all hon. Members who have campaigned so fervently on the issue. I will keep my comments brief, as my hon. Friend has already made her case very well. I confirm that she has the full support of the Opposition.
The amendments are designed to ensure that the Government’s pledge to abolish the so-called tampon tax has a clear deadline for implementation. My hon. Friend proposes 1 April 2017 or 1 April 2018. I must stress that Government amendment 161 does not address, and in fact suggests a degree of ambiguity, on this specific issue and the scope of our negotiations about VAT within the ambit of our EU membership. The job is not yet done, as the Minister knows. I know that she supports the idea generally and I welcome the comments she is likely to make, but more pressure is most certainly needed.
The explanatory notes to clause 125 state:
“This clause reduces the VAT rate on the supply of women’s sanitary products from 5 % to zero %.”
The Minister will be well aware that that is not the case. The clause does not zero-rate women’s sanitary products; it just provides the Treasury with enabling powers to do so at a time of its choosing and leaves wide open the question of when it will do so. My hon. Friend’s amendments would rectify that by imposing deadlines by which the tampon tax must be a thing of the past— 1 April 2017 in amendment 142, or 1 April 2018 in amendment 144. I hope the Minister will accept one of those amendments. I see no real reason why the Government need to delay this further, especially in the light of the decision to leave the EU.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I am conscious that we are trying to make progress, so I am afraid that I will not take any interventions.
As was said earlier, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated during the debate in the Public Bill Committee:
“I am optimistic that we will have the measure in place by 1 April 2017; I am happy to put that on the record.”
He also stated that
“the Government have an open mind as to whether we would accept the amendment on Report, when we hope to have greater clarity. We are confident that by 1 April there should be no reason why the measure is not in place. It is possible that the Government will come forward with our own amendment, but we may well simply accept amendment 5.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2016; c. 146.]
As has been noted, my hon. Friend has indeed tabled such an amendment again, and a second amendment that would allow the Government even more flexibility by providing an extra year. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made some very important points, and tabled another amendment setting a deadline of the start of the next calendar year. The Minister therefore has a vast array of options—more than the Government did in Committee—so I hope she will not disappoint my hon. Friend and, for that matter, the rest of the House.
A related issue has been raised a number of times with the Minister, but I am not convinced it has been fully addressed, so I would be grateful if she provided further clarification. There is concern that the full benefits of the zero-rating of sanitary products will not be passed on to women, and that some retailers will simply seek larger profit margins. When the rate of VAT was reduced to 5%, the Government said they would monitor whether the benefits were passed on to consumers. I asked the Minister in the Public Bill Committee to provide more information about whether this assessment ever occurred, and if so, what the data showed. Will she provide an answer? My hon. Friend has of course taken the initiative in negotiating directly with some retailers, who have committed to passing on the cut in full, but some smaller retailers may not do the same. What steps will the Government take to ensure that women will benefit from this change, not the pockets of retailers?
Finally, my hon. Friend has also tabled new clause 4, which would require the Chancellor to carry out an assessment of the revenue raised from VAT on women’s sanitary products since 1 January 2001, when the then Labour Government introduced the lower rate of VAT, and to lay before Parliament a report of that assessment within 12 months of the Act coming in to force. It must include an estimate of the total revenue raised since January 2001, and provide information about government policy relating to this revenue. As my hon. Friend has explained, that would address future funding for women’s organisations that benefited from the tampon tax fund set up by the previous Chancellor when pressure was originally brought to bear over the issue. We hope that the Minister can give us some reassurances that those services will receive the secure long-term funding they deserve. Should my hon. Friend divide the House, we will support the new clause.
I urge the Minister to accept at least one of my hon. Friend’s amendments and to bring to a conclusion the campaign against the tampon tax, an outcome that will owe much to the hard and determined work of my hon. Friend, along with the women who have fought for it outside this place. Finally, I place on the record my support for the comments made by SNP Members on maternity products, another area that I urge the Minister to look into.
Jane Ellison
I rise in 2016 to resume a debate that I first started with some college friends in 1986; I did not think then that this subject would end up being debated across the Chamber of the House of Commons, but I am glad that we are doing so.
The issue of VAT on women’s sanitary products—the tampon tax—has inspired a great deal of interest, as the speeches in this debate and the interest from our constituents have demonstrated. I will try to explain the Government’s approach and the amendment that we have tabled, and to give the Opposition some comfort on some of the questions they have asked, because there really is not very much between us on this issue and we want to try to make progress.
The Bill as it stands includes provisions to apply a zero rate of VAT to women’s sanitary products, with the intention being to do so as soon as possible. The Government strongly support doing so. We agree with the argument put forward by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), that VAT should not be applied at the current 5% reduced rate. We have a shared objective of achieving that goal as quickly as we can, in a manner that is legal and proper—I will come back to that—and that, in our new changed circumstances after the referendum vote, will not have a negative impact on our negotiations over the UK’s exit from the European Union.
Achieving that shared goal in a legal manner before we leave the EU requires a change in EU legislation. That must follow a proposal from the Commission and the unanimous agreement of all member states. We have been actively pursuing that, and have made progress, which some Members have alluded to. The former Prime Minister secured the unanimous agreement of all EU Heads of State and Government that the rules must change at the Council in March. Prior to the referendum we received assurances from the Commission that it would publish a legislative proposal for us at the earliest opportunity and definitely before the end of this year. When the Government introduced the Finance Bill, they expected to be able to apply the zero rate soon after Royal Assent.
The referendum result changes the circumstances—my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explained in Committee that the result affected the prospects for rapid implementation. However, I reassure those Members who have tabled amendments and all other hon. Members that we will not rest on the issue. The Government will continue to push for the proposal to be brought forward and agreed to as soon as possible. However, until we leave the EU we need the legislative change to introduce zero-rating; until we have it, fixing a date risks contravening EU law at a time when we are entering critical negotiations with the EU about our future.
Turning to those negotiations, the Prime Minister has been very clear that our rights and obligations remain in place until we leave the European Union. That is important: at this time it would be against the UK’s interests and the interests of all our constituents and of the businesses and universities in our constituencies to go into conflict with our legal obligations. We would risk jeopardising our negotiating position by pre-empting EU legislation on sanitary products. We would also risk the UK’s rights in other areas where we expect other EU member states and the Commission to respect their obligations to us. As the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said in his statement earlier, we must act in good faith towards our European partners. That is why the Government have proposed an alternative amendment that delivers on the intentions of the hon. Member for Dewsbury but ensures consistency with EU law. I hope that that reassures the House that we will give effect to the provisions in the Bill and commence zero-rating. We are pledging to continue to seek the powers to do so, but to put zero-rating into effect at the first moment when it is consistent with our legal duties.
The shadow Financial Secretary is concerned about the vagueness of that phrase. The Interpretation Act 1978 and schedule 1 to the European Communities Act 1972—I am sure it is everyone’s bedside reading—give exact meaning to the phrase “EU obligation”, which is our obligations under EU law. We are clear about that and we want that commitment in the Bill. That is a major step forward for the hon. Member for Dewsbury and everyone who has campaigned for zero-rating. The amendment commits the Government to commence by 1 April 2017 unless it is unlawful to do so. If on that date it is unlawful, there is a duty on the Government to commence at the first point when we can do so legally. That is the strongest commitment we can give, and one that I am happy to give today. I urge all hon. Members to support it.
On the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), I have tried to offer them and other hon. Members reassurance that the Government and I want the tampon tax removed as soon as possible. We will keep up our engagement in Europe to secure that, but, equally, hon. Members will understand that the Government must act in accordance with the law. Until we leave the EU, that includes our obligations, as I have said. Those obligations prevent us from removing the tax at the moment. We are trying to change it, but we cannot be certain of the timetable, because such legislation has to be agreed by all 28 member states.
For that reason, we must oppose the amendments—they would set in UK law a fixed latest date for zero-rating—but I stress again that there is no great difference between our intention and that of Opposition Members. We all want the tax ended as soon as possible. I hope that will happen by 1 April 2017 and I am even more hopeful that it will happen by 1 April 2018, but it cannot be guaranteed. The Government’s amendment will ensure that zero-rating starts domestically at the first opportunity consistent with our legal obligations.
I ask Members to look at what we are saying and to realise how close together we are. I also urge them not to be irresponsible in supporting something that will bring us into breach of our obligations. The duty in the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Dewsbury would impose a requirement on the Government to act illegally. We would be in breach of articles 1 and 110 of the principal VAT directive. Whatever Members’ views are of what the directive requires—we are making progress towards changing it—I would be surprised if members of Her Majesty’s official Opposition, or indeed any Member of the House, thought we could disregard it at such a crucial juncture, when the disregarding of the Commission’s and other nations’ obligations towards us could be significantly against the UK’s national interest. I again quote my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union from earlier today, when he said:
“Until we leave the European Union, we must respect the laws and the obligations”
of membership. I agree with him.
I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Dewsbury—[Interruption.] I should say that I have every sympathy with the amendments. I think she hinted that, if we do not have the legal change we need by 2018, the Government might have to introduce other measures. Our amendment solves the problem of having to revisit a law we have passed that we know might be illegal by April 2018. I suggest that that is not the most sensible way to legislate. The Government’s amendment achieves the same thing but keeps us within our legal obligations.
The other amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Dewsbury calls for a report on the revenue accrued from VAT on women’s sanitary products since 2001 and the tampon tax fund. I am very happy to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the fund. As I have said, we are taking all actions available to stop charging this VAT as soon as possible, but until that can be achieved the revenue it raises will be put into the tampon tax fund and directed to women’s health and support charities. So far, the £15 million a year fund has supported 25 charities, including many that are well known to us in this House: The Eve Appeal, SafeLives, Women’s Aid and the Haven. I am sure many of us will be “wearing it pink” next week. We will think then of the wonderful charities—I am very familiar with them from my previous role as Public Health Minister—that are benefiting. Funding has also been allocated to Comic Relief and Rosa—again, a charity I know very well—to disburse over the coming year to a range of grassroots women’s organisations, many of which have been championed so ably by Members across the House, in particular by some Labour Members.
Paula Sherriff
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 125
VAT: Women’s Sanitary Products
Amendment proposed: 144, page 205, line 32, leave out “such” and insert
“1 April 2018, or on any prior”.—(Paula Sherriff.)
Business without Debate
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Private Finance 2/Private Finance Initiative
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Most MPs can show in their constituencies where there are rotting floors, outdated buildings and potholes. Some may even have made a website about it, but the truth is that this is no laughing matter. We know that our schools in this country are falling apart, and that investment in our education buildings is 18% lower in 2014 than it was in 2009. Britain is now ranked 24th by the World Economic Forum for the quality of its infrastructure, down from 19th in 2006, and we cannot see this getting any better. Indeed, spending on infrastructure has nose-dived since Brexit.
Whatever some may say about fixing these problems, all of it has to be paid for, and Governments of all persuasions, including the previous Labour Government as well as the current Government, have used private finance to build. It is the equivalent of getting a mortgage or even remortgaging our home to pay for a new roof or an extension. Crucially in these deficit-denying times, it is seductive not only because it spreads payments for new schools, hospitals and stations and their management over decades or more, but because it keeps them off the books.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
According to a report of 2014, in Northern Ireland there were some 39 PFI projects with a staggering total cost of £7.3 billion for the maintenance and so forth. Does the hon. Lady agree that any further PFI must be an absolute last resort and indeed should only be permissible in cases of extreme need?
Stella Creasy
I hope to convince the hon. Gentleman that there may be many alternatives to PFI, because the question for us is: at what cost have we engaged in this borrowing? We now pay £10 billion a year in PFI repayments, equating to £3,400 for every man, woman and child in Britain. These projects are worth £57 billion, but we are committed to paying back £232 billion by 2050.
It is clear that PFI has addressed some of the project management issues we had in the public sector that made it so bad at building. As the National Audit Office highlights, it has dramatically cut late delivery of projects and overspending on buildings, but as the Treasury Committee points out, it is “sub-optimal value for money”.
One hospital was charged £52,000 to demolish a £750 shelter for smokers, and a school had to pay £302 for a plug socket to be replaced, five times the cost of the equipment it wanted to plug into it. In my constituency of Walthamstow, we have seen first-hand the damage done. My local hospital, Whipps Cross, is part of the Barts health foundation, which has the largest UK PFI deal, at £1.1 billion. By 2049 the amount paid back will be £7 billion. Last year alone the trust shelled out £148 million, equivalent to the salaries of 6,000 nurses, of which half was the interest paid on the loan. Its deficit of £90 million has led managers to downgrade nursing posts. It is little wonder the Care Quality Commission placed my local hospital into special measures as the quality of care declined.
The Minister will, I have no doubt, say his Government have reviewed PFI and made cuts to the costs, renegotiating to buy fewer lightbulbs and to do less cleaning, saving us a whole £1.6 billion out of about £220 billion, but as the NAO has pointed out, no one has really considered whether private finance itself is value for money.
Tonight I want to ask three simple questions: whether the terms of PFI—the rates we pay to borrow this way—are the best we as taxpayers can get to build schools and hospitals; whether even now we can save money on the costly deals that have been signed by Governments of all persuasions, and which are draining our public services of much-needed money; and above all whether the Government are doing enough to secure the competition for our business as taxpayers.
Of course it is hard to answer those questions without the data on what we are paying. I know that the Government do not have those data, because I have asked. I tried asking all the hospitals around the country what rate they were paying, because on 8 February this year Treasury Ministers told me that they do not hold those data centrally. Most NHS trusts refused to disclose the information, claiming that it was commercially sensitive, but those that did were very revealing. Their data showed that, in December 1994 under John Major’s Government, two PFIs in Durham—one for the Dryburn district hospital and one for the Bishop Auckland general hospital—had rates of return of 15% and 18% respectively. In comparison, the 10-year gilt rate was just over 8% at the time. In December 2002, the Crosshouse maternity hospital in Kilmarnock was rated at 16%, while a month later Edmonton acute services were rated at 14%. The gilt rate was 4.6% at that time. In March 2010, the Leeds Wellbeing Centre offered a return of 14% and the Liverpool University hospital redevelopment offered 11%. The long-term gilt rate was then 4.2%.
Some people will argue that we cannot make a direct comparison with gilt rates, so let me flag up the fact that equity returns on the stock market have averaged between 5% and 6% per annum over the past 30 years. It is therefore clear that PFI investors got a great rate, and that was no accident. Critically, research from Edinburgh University shows that these rates do not vary as other premiums do in our financial markets, and that they stay well above the cost of other forms of funding. So public bodies might know full well that the premiums are high, but if that is the return that the market expects for managing the projects and there is no alternative, there is not much they can do without the Government’s help.
I should also point out that those are the rates for when the contracts were signed. As we now know, much profit has been made by selling the debts on. The South London Healthcare NHS Trust, which collapsed, had two large PFI contracts, one of which was offering investors annual returns of 71%. Most PFI contracts were let on an expectation of an already high rate of return of 15% to 17%, but refinancing has seen some returns to investors rise to over 70%.
In 2007, a new standard contract clause was created to allow authorities to request this financial information in order to track the returns that investors were creating. However, there is little evidence that the clause has been used or even that the Government have promoted it, so it is hard for us to see just how much taxpayers’ money is being recycled into higher payments for investment funds rather than into infrastructure for the UK. Again, no central database exists.
We might not know what we are paying, but we do know who we are paying, and it is often the same companies, with 45% of projects funded by the same people. Firms such as Dalmore Capital, Semperian, Kajima, Innisfree and Barclays crop up time and again, and they often invest together too. This dominance by a small group of companies matters because this Government are continuing to use their services in their proposed replacement for PFI, known as PF2. PF2 separates out the service element—the building management—from the capital, which involves the building of the project. So far, so good. Those lightbulbs might be replaced after all, if their cost is not connected to the cost of building the schools.
However, PF2 is supposed to attract more long-term investors by increasing the requirement for equity—the most expensive bit of the deal—potentially making it even more expensive to the public purse than PFI. It also expects us as taxpayers to take on more—not enough to be in charge of the project, but more to cover the cost. So it is not that different from PFI. It is still about us borrowing money from private companies to build things, at rates that are not transparent or competitive with the alternative sources of finance that we could raise.
Are there better ways to borrow to build? Certainly the calculations used by the Government in the Green Book to compare the cost of these deals with public spending have not made that question easier to answer. They set the value of public sector borrowing at 3.5% real and 6 % nominal since 2003, despite the cost of public borrowing being well below that for over a decade. The Treasury Select Committee has suggested that the Government review the Green Book, but it is not clear that the Government have heard that message. Will the Minister tell us whether PF2 is using the same calculations as PFI, at the very time when the cost of borrowing to the public sector is even lower? The Green Book also includes the shadow price of tax—the money that private companies will pay in tax in the UK as a result of getting this business. That money is set against the cost of borrowing from those companies to decide whether the deal is better than using public money to fund a project.
The lack of information about such projects means that the Government are simply unable to verify whether the tax presumptions are accurate. The NAO suggests not. The companies themselves continue to be sited overseas. Innisfree and Palio Partners are sited in Guernsey, and Semperian is registered in Jersey. PF2 will do nothing to tackle that or to stop the resale of shares in such deals, which make more money by taking advantage of the fact that Governments do not default. What does the Minister make of the bosses of the Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, who admitted that they could not stop Carillion, investors in the PF2 for the Midland Metropolitan hospital, from selling on its equity investment to generate the kind of profits that we saw under PFI?
At a time when huge spending cuts are being threatened and when the NHS faces a financial shortfall of £20 billion by 2020 alone, to continue to pay inflated rates to rich investors is to continue to ignore the problems. A quarter of single-tier and county councils now spend the equivalent of 10% of their revenue on debt servicing. The answer to the first question is no; private deals are not always a good deal. We therefore need to answer a second question: if we cannot get out of them, can we renegotiate? Can we consolidate to reduce the repayments and put the savings back into front-line services? To date, sadly only Northumbria NHS Trust has done that and only at great expense to the council and with minimal savings. Imagine the savings that could have been achieved had the Government negotiated a group of the contracts with these companies at the same time. The savings in interest could be paying down debt or paying nurses and teachers properly.
We then face our final question: why are we borrowing only from these companies? Why are more companies not competing for our business as taxpayers? In the past few years, this Government have been making it harder for local government to pay down its debts. The Public Works Loan Board could use the Government’s financial strength as a borrower to secure much lower rates and then pass them on to public bodies. Instead, they changed the early repayment terms in 2007. In 2010, changes were made to loans to make it harder, not easier, for local councils to borrow efficiently.
If that does not excite Ministers, perhaps they will support an alternative in the shape of the new municipal bond agency created by local councils. The agency seeks to lend at margins of between 0.6% and 1% over the underlying Government funding rate. Currently, if a council wants to borrow money for 30 years from the Public Works Loan Board, it will charge just over 2%. In contrast to the complexity of PFI or PF2, municipal bonds are simple and transparent. Bonds are issued to the market to raise funds and local government lending is at a fixed rate.
The Government could make pensions funds more likely to invest in partnerships with Government by being more transparent about the deals and the returns to be made. The current Pensions Infrastructure Platform has led to such companies buying old PFI debt, but that can change. The Manchester and London local government pension funds have recently acted together to invest in windfarms and biomass, so there is clearly a market. With Government support, that could be the basis for a UK sovereign wealth fund—the people’s money used for the people’s projects. The sad truth, however, is that no such innovations are coming from this House or the Treasury, so why are we throwing good money after bad trying to make private finance initiatives work? With a Prime Minister who has pledged to put infrastructure investment at the heart of post-Brexit economy, Britain cannot afford to keep making expensive mistakes.
I have five simple questions for the Minister. First, will he commit to publishing the rates at which public agencies are borrowing so we can have greater transparency of the costs incurred to the taxpayer and so that we can check whether, as many fear, PF2 will be more expensive than PFI? When will the Government publish the equity returns data, promised since last year, on the PF2 deals? Secondly, is the minister not perturbed by the relationships between a small group of institutional investors in these deals and the lack of competition for taxpayers’ business? If so, will he ask the Competition and Markets Authority, which acts on the behalf of consumers—as taxpayers, we are consumers—to review the sector and explore whether barriers to new entrants exist? Thirdly, will the Government help public bodies saddled with PFI and PF2 contracts to renegotiate debts and get the costs down to save money for front-line services? Fourthly, will the Government rewrite the Green Book to reflect the real costs and benefits of public borrowing versus private borrowing? Fifthly, what does he make of the new Eurostat rules published in March that consider the equity stakes that the Government intend us to take out under PF2 to be direct financing, meaning that they should be on the books? Does that not undermine the point of PF2 in the first place?
Finally, how will the Minister stop money simply going overseas into tax havens and into higher profits for private companies, not public services for the people? As things stand, 46 schools, and many more hospitals, will be built using £700 million of that PF2 control total, at a time when borrowing is at an exceptionally low cost for government. Do not take my word for that. Instead, take the word of Leo Quinn, the chief executive of Balfour Beatty, who recently said that “money is effectively free”. There is no excuse not to act, to tackle the costs of existing PFI contracts and the lack of competition for our business as taxpayers, so that we can really get value for money and so that instead of injecting our cash into profits for private companies overseas, we can inject our money into the kind of projects that will get Britain’s economy and Britain’s people back into business.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for securing this debate. How we go about funding the infrastructure this country needs is a topic of huge importance, and I know Members from across the House will join me in thanking her for this opportunity to discuss it today, because we all share a desire to make sure we fund our public services in the best way possible. We are talking about the schools and hospitals people rely on, as well as the roads, train lines, energy supplies and broadband coverage. In short, we are talking about the public services that not only keep our economy running, but help us to generate new jobs and new opportunities for people across the country.
As someone who has run a number of businesses and now finds himself as a Minister at the Treasury, I do not want to see money wasted. My priority, and that of my colleagues in Government, is therefore to make sure that when we invest in the services people need, we get a good outcome and we pay a good price. Clearly, teaming up with the private sector can be an important way to finance new projects in the most efficient way possible, because often these are complex, difficult projects, which come with a range of risks to delivering them successfully, on time and on budget. One benefit that PFI brought was to move the risks associated with constructing and delivering these projects to the private sector, which was best placed to manage them. For us, that means not only that if something goes wrong, it is the responsibility of the private sector partners to fix it, but that we pay only if the service is working and available for use. As such, partnerships between the public and private sectors can be the best way to find the best value for the taxpayer, and we are clear that we will only enter into public-private partnerships where the evidence shows us that is the case.
We have also done a lot of work to make sure that the system of financing projects privately is as effective as possible. The primary model used for about two decades was, of course, PFI. Although in many cases it was an effective way to deliver new infrastructure, it was not always the case that projects went smoothly, and not all of these partnerships delivered the value for money that we would all want to see. That is why, under the last Government, we did a lot of work to tackle that. We looked at what lessons we could draw from PFI and how we could keep the best parts of it while making important reforms. That culminated in the 2012 launch of a new model for how public private partnerships could work, PF2, which has helped iron out a variety of issues. For example, PFI was often criticised for its long procurement times, which could sometimes last for many years. PF2 has already been shown to deliver shorter procurement times, and has already delivered almost 50 schools and a hospital project.
Under the new system, we have also taken important measures to improve transparency, ranging from the annual publication of data to the Treasury’s involvement on the boards of the companies leading the projects, and we also listened to feedback from stakeholders to build in more flexibility to the standard contracts we used, which often dictated services such as cleaning and catering. These have been removed, which means that the public sector now has a greater say over how the services it uses are run. We also have improved the overall system for new projects going forward. We must bear it in mind that we have a legacy of more than 700 projects that originated under the private finance initiative, which together are worth around £60 billion in terms of capital investment. Six hundred and thirty nine of those projects had reached financial close before May 2010.
We want to do what we can to ensure that these projects run as efficiently as possible. In 2011, we launched a programme to deliver an initial £1.5 billion of savings and efficiencies. We looked at PFI projects across sectors—from health to education and justice to transport. I am pleased to say that, as of March last year, public sector organisations from across local and central Government had reported more than £2 billion of savings and efficiencies over the life of the projects. We are still exploring a potential further £2 billion in savings through the more efficient use of facilities and adjustments to the scope of contracts.
Stella Creasy
The Minister just said there that the Government are still exploring how to make further savings on the scope of the contracts. Can he confirm whether the Government are looking at the rates of return paid on these contracts, and whether there are opportunities to negotiate with the companies that own these contracts—they are spread across the country—to reduce the repayments of interest on them collectively and to consolidate some of the loans for the public sector?
Simon Kirby
What I can say is that the Government are prepared to look at all of these individual arrangements to see where it is possible to obtain the best value for money. Often, it is simply not possible to restructure or to pay off the debt in a way that offers value for money for the taxpayer. We would be mad, would we not, if we did not look carefully at providing the best possible value for money and the best possible public services? That is an ongoing issue.
As I was saying, if it is not possible to find obvious savings in a project, we will work with Departments and procuring authorities to improve day-to-day efficiencies and management of the contract.
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions, including one on equity investments and equity returns. Public sector equity—equity and shareholder loans—committed to PF2 projects as at March 2016 totalled £8.2 million. The Infrastructure and Projects Authority, on behalf of the Treasury, plans to collate the equity returns information over the course of this year. This will be the first collection of such data, as the projects included are only now becoming operational and starting to make a return. We have not yet set a date for publication, but we can expect it at an appropriate time in the future.
The hon. Lady asked about the Green Book. I can tell her that it will be refreshed later this year. There will be clear guidance to Departments about the alternatives to PF2, and about whether that particular form of finance is the most appropriate. She also mentioned value for money. To be clear, the Government will only use public private partnerships such as PF2 to deliver a project that provides value for money over a publicly financed solution. Analysis is carried out using the principles in the Green Book, which is published by the Treasury.
Stella Creasy
Obviously, one issue here is whether there is effective competition for our businesses as consumers. I did urge the Minister to ask the Competition and Markets Authority to review that very point, so that there may be more options and more alternatives. It may help us to understand why there are barriers to the alternatives. Will he agree to that, and will he clarify what he means by the appropriate time for those equity returns data? Obviously, we have been promised that for more than 18 months. Will he guarantee that that will be an early Christmas present at the very least?
Simon Kirby
I can certainly guarantee that it will be as soon as possible. The thing is we need the data to be able to report on them. Most of these projects are only just starting, so I am sure that we will have it as soon as is reasonable.
The hon. Lady mentions alternatives. I am fortunate to have in my constituency, Brighton Kemptown, a fantastic new hospital being built at nearly £500 million. It is not using PFI or PF2. It is the Royal Sussex county hospital. Each of these projects is financed in different ways, but all projects should provide the best value for money for the taxpayer.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
My local hospital and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) has one of the particularly egregious examples of PFI, signed some time ago. With reference to what the hon. Lady described, that is an example of a hospital with a severe PFI that could be bought back, avoiding some of the inflated interest costs in the years to come. Will the Treasury seriously consider, in this age of incredibly low public borrowing, a 30-year bond, for example, to buy back the most egregious PFI debts, particularly in the case of hospitals, where such debts have a major effect on certain trusts, such as mine? That must be the way to secure best value for the taxpayer in the long term.
Simon Kirby
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Projects are financed in different ways. The hon. Lady’s local hospital, Whipps Cross, which is part of the Barts hospital PFI, was bond-financed. Refinancing is far more difficult and far less practical for bond debt. It is safe to say that refinancing of bonds is unlikely to provide value for money. The aim is value for money not only in the financing of new projects, but in changing or varying an existing finance arrangement.
Stella Creasy
I am pleased that the Minister refers to my local hospital. That is owned by Innisfree, which owns a huge number of such projects across the country. I am not sure if the one in Sherwood is one of those. I believe some of those in Brighton Kemptown may have some connection to Innisfree. There is a case to be made for renegotiating with such companies, which may wish to bid for PF2 business in the future. Is the Minister satisfied that there is enough competition for our business as taxpayers? Will he refer the matter to the Competition and Markets Authority so that it can look at whether those companies have a captive market, and whether alternatives such as bonds or the pension funds might be willing to invest in such projects and help out those public services, as well as not making the same mistakes with PF2 as seem to have been made with PFI?
Simon Kirby
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that question. I am happy to reassure her and give her a commitment that I will look at any solution that provides value for money. If that means that we should have more competition, so be it. We have a responsibility as a Government to get the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. In many cases we are historically in a difficult position. Her hospital finance was agreed in 2006, if I remember correctly. It is very difficult to unwind, but if she is asking me whether it is the Government’s intention to get the best possible deal, the answer is yes. If, after all the necessary investigation and consideration, it was appropriate to follow the route that she suggests, I would certainly consider that.
I reiterate that the issue is important. There is surprising agreement across the House. We all want to see the best possible public services and we all want the best possible deal for our constituents and the taxpayers who pay for these vital infrastructure projects, but we must be realistic about what we can change from the past. That does not mean that we should give up and accept that it is not possible to provide a better deal. We aim to achieve the best possible value always, because that is what the public expect and what the nation’s finances need, and it is what I and this Government will do our best to deliver.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Bowel cancer screening
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
EU Referendum Rules
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Before commencing this afternoon’s important debate, called by the Petitions Committee of the House of Commons, it might be useful if I lay out a couple of rules of procedure. First, quite a large number of Members have signified their intention to speak. However, we have got a three-hour debate and I do not intend to apply a formal time limit to speeches—at least to begin with. We have the authority to do that later. If Members are sensible and restrict their remarks to five to 10 minutes apiece, we might get most Members who wish to speak into the debate.
Secondly, the motion before us today, namely that we have considered the petition, is very specific, and I intend to be fairly strict in preventing Members from rambling widely into every issue to do with the European Union and Brexit. Those are not matters for debate this afternoon; the debate is simply about whether we should have a second referendum. With that as prologue, I call Mr Ian Blackford to move the motion.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 131215 relating to EU referendum rules.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I appreciate the motivation of those who have called for a second referendum. It is a mark of an irresponsible Government that, more than two months after the EU referendum, we know nothing more than the Prime Minister’s soundbite “Brexit means Brexit”. We are not the only ones confused by the UK Government’s haphazard approach to leaving the EU. Speaking at the G20 summit in China, President Obama said that the UK will not be prioritised in free trade talks. He said that he never meant to say that the US would “punish Great Britain”, but simply that he wanted to challenge the notion that the consequences of Brexit are negligible and that Brexiteers would
“just go ahead and light-up a whole bunch of free trade agreements.”
An official Japanese Government briefing leaked to the summit warned of the repercussions for the thousands of people employed by Japanese car, finance and high-tech firms in the UK, and sought assurances about continued access to the single market, tariff levels and other trade privileges. The notion that the UK can quickly put in place trade deals around the world is fanciful. It is wishful thinking without any basis in experience or likelihood of delivery. It is no more than a policy of “hope for the best”.
The UK Government should follow the Scottish Government’s example and announce an urgent economic stimulus plan. We are clear that the least bad option requires the UK to stay within the single market. The Scottish Government will use their influence to shape the best outcome for Scotland and the UK as a whole, which means the UK continuing to be a member of the single market.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I said that I was going to do this to begin with, so I hope the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) will forgive me if I point out that we are discussing the question of whether there should be a second referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union. It is therefore not in order to discuss anything to do with Scotland or Britain’s role in the wider world. Our sole purpose is to discuss whether there should be a second referendum on our membership of the European Union, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will restrict himself to that particular topic.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Gray. If you will forgive me, I am trying to move on to discuss that very topic, but I am putting it in the context of many of the things that happened during the referendum campaign and why we are in this position.
Stephen Doughty
I am mindful of your comments, Mr Gray, so I will try to put my intervention in the correct context. Many of my constituents have written to me arguing for a second referendum, but many have also argued that it must be absolutely clear that it cannot be the case that Parliament does not get to have a say on this issue again, and that it certainly cannot be the case that the devolved Administrations and Governments do not get to have a say. It is my view that they absolutely must. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Ian Blackford
I am very grateful for that intervention. I will come on to the sovereignty of Parliament—and, indeed, the sovereignty of the people—because that is a very important point. I will address it later in my speech.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Given the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman is outlining, the call for a second referendum is not only damaging to our democracy, but enormously diversionary from the tasks that he outlined of negotiating our relationship with our European neighbours and the rest of the world, and, equally significantly, getting the British Government machinery working efficiently and effectively so we can make decisions and compete in that new world.
Ian Blackford
I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but there is the issue of what people voted for. The situation is in contrast with that of Scotland in 2014, when the Scottish Government had a 650-page White Paper that laid out exactly what would happen to Scotland post a vote for independence. The problem with the Brexit campaign is that we did not have a manifesto.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed that there is no commitment to give additional funds to the NHS as a consequence of Brexit—a pledge that toured the country on the side of a bus, and on the basis of which millions of people voted in good faith to leave the EU. The Prime Minister says that Brexit means Brexit, but when such pledges are broken almost immediately, none of us really knows what Brexit will mean. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that lack of clarity further underlines the case for enabling the British people to see the detail of the actual Brexit deal and vote again on whether they would like to proceed on those specific terms, and that that should take place before article 50 is triggered?
Ian Blackford
It is fair to say that those on the Brexit side failed to put across exactly what Brexit means. The week after the Brexit result, the Chancellor—then the Foreign Secretary—said that the Government have no plan. That is the difficulty that the hon. Lady is referring to. When the Prime Minister says “Brexit means Brexit”, what does that mean? There has not been an explanation of exactly what it means.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
When we talk about a second referendum, it is important to be clear about whether we are talking about simply rerunning the old referendum, which I am sure no one is suggesting—that would absolutely undermine democracy—or about a referendum on the terms of any new deal. That is absolutely crucial. In that context, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should take into account the conclusions of the Electoral Reform Society, which has done a report on the myths, misinformation and downright lies in the previous referendum, and says that we have got to do things better next time?
Ian Blackford
I absolutely agree. The Electoral Reform Society talked about many of the good things in the referendum in Scotland in 2014—it is often described as a gold standard—such as the fact that we had a long referendum campaign and that people were able to make a judgment based on the facts. That is a reasonable point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
Let me make some progress, then I will be happy to take more interventions.
The Scottish Government have already announced an additional £100 million of funding in this financial year to stimulate the economy following the uncertainty about the UK’s future relationship with the EU. As a Scottish MP, I fully support the action taken by the Scottish Government and backed by a vote in the Scottish Parliament empowering them to secure Scotland’s place in the EU. That context is important to this debate, Mr Gray. When the vote was taken in the Scottish Parliament, 106 Members voted for the motion, eight voted against and there were three abstentions. Our Scottish Parliament, on a cross-party basis, gave an unequivocal statement that Scotland voted to remain in Europe. Let me put it this way: remain means remain.
The Government in Westminster repeatedly tell us that they respect the authority of the Parliament in Edinburgh. The Government in London should reflect on what respect means when it comes to article 50 and the desire, if that is what they have, to remove the UK from Europe before recognising our desire and our right to remain in Europe. Our position must be given cognisance. As the UK develops its position ahead of triggering article 50, the Scottish Government must be given a central role in the deliberations and negotiations. The Prime Minister must not bypass Scotland in the EU negotiations.
It is deeply worrying that the Prime Minister is ploughing ahead with a hard breakfast—[Laughter.] I mean Brexit; other than the dog’s breakfast that was the Brexit campaign. We wish to remain in Europe, with full access to the single market and full free movement of people.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but I made it absolutely plain at the beginning that this debate is on the very narrow and specific question of the wording of the petition, namely:
“We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum.”
That is the topic of debate. We are not debating whether we should be in the European Union, what happened in the Scottish Parliament, or the benefits of Brexit or of staying in the European Union. We are debating simply whether there should be a repeat of the original EU referendum, and the hon. Gentleman should return to that subject if he does not mind.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for the guidance from the Chair, and I am seeking to follow it. I am building up an argument about why we are in the position we are in. If you will show me some forbearance, Mr Gray, I will address myself to those words—
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep to the point of the debate.
Ian Blackford
The point, however, is that we have been asked about the rules for an EU referendum. My specific argument comes down to the issue of where sovereignty lies. In our opinion, sovereignty in Scotland lies with the people, and the people of Scotland voted 62% to remain within Europe. Those are the arguments that I will outline in the debate, and I believe that in a process of free speech I should be entitled to do so.
The respected Professors Chalmers and Menon, writing for Open Europe, suggested that Scotland could have a different relationship with the European Union from the rest of the UK, including free movement of people, and Scotland continuing to sign up to EU law. Others have pointed to the so-called “reverse Greenland” scenario, in which the rest of the UK leaves the EU, but Scotland retains the existing rights and membership of the EU. It is up to Westminster whether it is willing to recognise Scotland’s position, which requires its own settlement, perhaps with Northern Ireland, another of the family of nations which voted to remain.
As I have said, 62% of Scots who voted expressed a desire to remain. We often hear about the sovereignty of Parliament, but we have our own tradition in Scotland, and it is one in which the people are sovereign. In the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate in the Court of Session in 1953—
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I must now insist that the hon. Gentleman return to the topic of the debate in hand, namely whether we should have a second referendum on the EU. If he is unable to return to that subject, he will have to resume his seat, because other Members in the Chamber will do so. It is nothing to do with freedom of speech. The topic of the debate is absolutely plain, and it is vital that he address himself to it and to nothing else.
Ian Blackford
With respect, Mr Gray, that is precisely what I am trying to do. I am putting this in the context of what has happened in Scotland. On the basis of free speech, I ask that I be given the opportunity to present my argument in the way that I feel is appropriate to the people of my country. This is about the people of Scotland being listened to when they have, under the rules of the referendum, voted to remain. I am perfectly entitled to make that argument, which I intend to do.
The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctly English one, which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law. The judgment in the case that I cited recognised the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, and that is something the Government in London will have to accept. Scotland voted to remain, so we could remain citizens of Europe, and that must be respected. Those who have signed the petition and pushed for a second referendum would, I hope, recognise that, as a Scottish MP seeking to hold the Government in London to account and standing up for the people of Scotland, who voted to remain, my primary responsibility is to the people of Scotland.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
On the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, did they not vote to remain in the United Kingdom? Is it therefore not implicit that they have accepted the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom?
Ian Blackford
We had a referendum in 2014, and 45% of those who voted in it voted for independence and 55% voted to remain in the UK, but the important point is that in that referendum debate, the Conservative-Liberal coalition Government and their partners in Better Together, the Labour party, told the people of Scotland that if they voted to remain in the UK, their position in Europe would be guaranteed. The people of Scotland were misled. I will come on to the mandate given to the Scottish Government by the Scottish Parliament, on a cross-party basis, which is to protect Scotland’s position in the EU with all measures, up to and including a second independence referendum, that might be necessary.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
As I understand the position, in the past two years the hon. Gentleman has taken part in two referendums and lost both of them. As a consequence, I imagine he wants to rerun both. Which comes first? Does he want to rerun the EU referendum or the Scottish independence referendum first?
Ian Blackford
I will try to stick to the terms of the debate today—I am arguing strongly that my primary interest in this case is to protect Scotland’s position within the EU, which I hope gives some succour to those who have argued for the petition. That is our first priority. If, because the UK Government refuse to recognise our position, the only way to protect Scotland’s position is independence, of course we will say to the Scottish people that that is the path that they should be going down.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
To confirm, for the sake of clarity, the hon. Gentleman wants to have a free and independent Scotland ruled from Brussels.
Ian Blackford
I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but this is about securing Scotland’s position within Europe—to ensure that Scotland is a destination, that we can fulfil our potential and sustainable economic growth for Scotland. In order to do that—
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I have told the hon. Gentleman on several occasions that the debate is not about any of the things that he is discussing. He is completely and utterly out of order. He is discussing a debate that is not for this Chamber today. If he persists, I will ask him to resume his seat and I will give the Floor to someone else. I insist that the hon. Gentleman return to the motion before us today, namely whether there should be a second referendum on our membership of the European Union. That is the topic of our debate, nothing else. If he cannot do that, he will have to remain seated. I invite him now to return to his feet and to discuss the issue of whether there should be a second referendum.
Ian Blackford
I have to say that I am surprised by the remarks from the Chair. All that I was doing was responding to an intervention, which I was answering to the fullest extent that I could. I will move on.
It is pertinent to ask how the UK has got itself into this situation. In the recent general election campaign, the then leader of the Conservative party committed his party to holding a referendum on EU membership if elected to government. That commitment was made not from a position of conviction—because he personally wanted out of the EU—but simply to buy off those in his own party who did not want to be part of Europe. There was no leadership and no vision about how to take Europe forward; it was an abrogation of responsibility, and we then had the most unedifying of campaigns.
In Scotland we often refer to the arrangements for our own referendum as the gold standard, although that admittedly did not stop the descent into negativity that characterised “Project Fear”. We can argue, however, that there was strong public engagement and, crucially, young people whose future was to be determined by the vote—those aged 16 and 17—were able to participate. EU citizens living in Scotland also participated, and rightly so.
The EU referendum was different: 16 and 17-year-olds, and EU citizens were excluded. We might have anticipated that the debate would therefore become narrow and inward looking, and that is precisely what happened. The Prime Minister and his Government who wanted to remain in Europe had the opportunity to shape the debate, but rather than painting a vision of the UK in Europe, “Project Fear” went into overdrive—not so much a positive case for Europe as a campaign that failed to inspire. The Prime Minister went into battle with a plan that was flawed, and that became increasingly obvious in the months leading up to the referendum.
In much of the UK, the debate came to be about immigration—not about how migration in and out of the UK can enrich our society and the rest of the world, but about a fear of immigration. There was little appreciation or understanding of the positive impact that migrants have on our economy, or of their contribution to our health service and other public services. There has been much talk of those left behind, those who have not seen improvement in their living standards or quality of life, but immigration has not led to such circumstances; they are the result of a failure of Government policy to invest in our public services to ensure that capacity is sufficient to meet the needs of all our communities.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the referendum campaign was flawed in terms of the information that people had access to, but I also agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that we should not look to rerun the referendum we have just had. Instead, we should look forward to having a referendum on the Brexit deal, because the big question facing us now is what Brexit means. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s stance on that is: is he talking about a rerun of the vote that we had on 23 June, or about a Brexit vote?
Ian Blackford
I am not talking about a rerun of the referendum campaign we have just had. I am arguing specifically, as a Scottish MP, that Scotland voted to remain, so, before we go through the article 50 process, the Government in Westminster have the opportunity to reflect on recognising the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, and that to do so would help those who signed the petition we are debating.
This is the debate that we should have been having, rather than the one that we had. Rather than being seen as investing in our future, immigrants have become scapegoated and hate crime has been on the rise. Not only have immigrants been scapegoated, but EU citizens living in the UK are now fearful about whether they will have long-term rights to remain.
On the morning of 24 June, after a failure of leadership by the UK Government, the First Minister of Scotland spoke for many in a message that resonated not only in Scotland, but throughout the UK. Her message was clear: EU citizens living here are our friends, neighbours and colleagues, and they are welcome. Some 173,000 EU citizens are part of our communities in Scotland, and many are fearful about whether they can remain. Uncertainty still exists. The Prime Minister should do the right thing and state that all EU citizens who are here now are welcome to stay. It is about doing the right thing. Those who are here have been welcomed in; why would we not remove any uncertainty? We are talking about people who under no circumstances should be used as bargaining counters in any Brexit talks. Where is the humanity? The Prime Minister will be judged by her actions: show compassion and decency.
We should also have been discussing the very pillar of the argument about the benefits of European membership: peace in the continent, fostered by nations working together for the common good.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that changing the rules of the game ex post facto if we do not like the result, which is precisely what the petition proposes, is not really the way that we do things in this whole United Kingdom? Even among people who voted to remain, myself included, a very large number would not accept a second referendum, despite being disappointed by the result.
Ian Blackford
There were flaws in the way that the referendum was conducted, but as a democrat and someone who argues very much for the sovereignty of people, I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s view. We must not override democracy by denying those in the UK who voted in the referendum their rights, but we must equally recognise the votes of the people in Scotland who voted to remain.
We must champion the benefits of the single market in trade, services and—yes—people. Much of that positive argument was lost in the deluge of fear and negativity. The costs of our membership were much discussed, but the benefits were not. When it comes to the costs, those who spoke about a bounty for the NHS should hang their heads in shame. Much of the Brexiteers’ argument has been shown to be false. The people who are responsible for this situation are those who engineered the referendum and our departed Prime Minister, who showed a complete lack of leadership in securing the UK’s continued membership of the EU. It is often claimed that all political careers end in failure. The Prime Minister fell on his sword after the referendum. His tenure will be reflected on as one during which he presided over the UK leaving the EU—something that he was personally against. I cannot think of a greater foreign policy disaster for any Conservative Prime Minister since Eden and the Suez crisis.
Not only did the Prime Minister announce that he was going, but one of the primary Vote Leave architects, the ex-Mayor of London, then proclaimed that the Government did not have a plan for Brexit.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been asked repeatedly to return his remarks to the simple issue of whether we should repeat the referendum. If he wants to continue, I require him to return to that specific topic and no other. If he cannot do that, he will have to resume his seat and I will pass the floor to someone else. I call Mr Ian Blackford to talk specifically about a second referendum.
Ian Blackford
I am trying to address myself to that topic. If you will bear with me, Mr Gray, I am just a few short remarks from closing.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Nor will the hon. Gentleman enter into discussion with the Chair about what I am ruling. My rule is final, and whatever I say in the Chamber goes. What I am saying is that he is deviating wildly from the topic that we are discussing. I require him to return to that specific topic. If he cannot, I will ask him to resume his seat.
Ian Blackford
I hope that the people of Scotland are listening to this debate and the conduct of it.
Contrast the omnishambles of the EU referendum with our referendum in Scotland, when those of us arguing for independence had the benefit of a 650-page White Paper that went through every area of Government. The Brexiteers wanted out of Europe, but they had no plan for the day after the referendum or any other day in the future. We were all to be cast adrift from Europe when the Government decided to trigger article 50 and begin the process of disengagement from Europe. There is still no plan to put in place the much heralded new trade agreements. There has been a lack of leadership not only from the Government but from the Labour Opposition, whose campaign to remain in the EU was lukewarm at best. Labour sources have repeatedly suggested that their leader may not even have voted to remain. It is little wonder that we are where we are today: in a UK that has turned its back on the EU. We know who the real separatists are in the UK.
We live in uncertain times. Western economies are still grappling with the fallout from the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008. Brexit has led to the Bank of England—
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. He will now resume his seat. I call Mr John Penrose.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
I understand that you are making a point of order. On a point of order, Mr Ian Blackford.
Ian Blackford
I am not making a point of order. I am making a speech that is legitimate in the context of the debate. People in Scotland will see exactly what is happening here: the Chair is refusing to allow the elected representatives of the people of Scotland to give a speech. That is the clear judgment of what has been delivered by this Chair.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. As a Scot, I very much hope that the Scots are indeed listening to the debate. The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of order. I call Mr John Penrose.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
As Constitutional Reform Minister at the time, I had responsibility for the detailed election rules set out in the European Union Referendum Act 2015. Since those rules would have included any provision for a super-majority of the kind that is suggested in the petition, it might help if I explain why we did not include such a super-majority in that Act, which was passed by Parliament last year.
There was not much discussion of super-majorities when Parliament debated the 2015 Act, but had that subject come up, I suspect that there would have been widespread opposition to it from campaigners on both sides of the debate. No matter what the issue at hand may be, a super-majority gives an in-built advantage to the status quo. It tilts the playing field deliberately in favour of no change. In other words, it would rightly have been seen as a pretty transparent attempt to give the remain campaign an enormous—and in the eyes of many, unfair—advantage. Leave supporters would have denounced it in ringing terms. Equally importantly, more thoughtful remain campaigners would probably have felt uncomfortable too.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting start. Does he agree that if both sides of the campaign are supposed to be balanced, it is irresponsible for anyone to deliver literature in the closing days of any referendum campaign strongly advising people, “If in doubt, vote for the status quo”? If people are in doubt, they should not vote.
John Penrose
My point was that had we set up a super-majority as the petition suggests, we would have tilted the rules unfairly in favour of the remain campaign. With a fair and level playing field, both sides are free to make their cases as strongly as they can and to rebut the other side’s case if they feel that it is wrong. The hon. Gentleman clearly feels that some of the points that were made were entirely incorrect, but the correct response was to argue against them and engage in democratic debate at the time, not to try to tilt the playing field towards one side or the other.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about super-majorities, but they have been used in British constitutional history—they were used in the devolution referendums at the end of the 1970s—and are used in many other democracies. They are used in the United States, for example, for amendments to the constitution. Therein lies the problem. Does he agree that one of the clashes—it is why we are having this debate—was caused by the fact that the result was narrow? Many of us wish to respect that result, but at the same time my constituency, for example, voted by 60% to 40% to remain. We also have that situation in Scotland. That is why the public feel torn, and that is the difficulty that we are all dealing with.
John Penrose
I completely agree. The outcome, although definitive—there was an overall majority of well more than 1 million votes—was still uncomfortably narrow, and 48% of the population were on one side. Democratically, we therefore need to go through a healing process as an entire country to repair that damage, but wishing that it were otherwise will not change the historical fact of the result and the fact that the rules were as fair as Parliament could make them after extensive debate.
The referendum, with those rules, was intended to put the question of our EU membership to rest once and for all. If it had been an unfair referendum and the rules had been slanted in one direction or the other, it would have completely failed in that central aim. Far from drawing a line under the issue forever, we would have faced a “neverendum,” with both sides banging on about Europe for decades. I doubt that anyone could invent something more divisive, distracting or, frankly, soul-destroyingly boring if they tried.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
John Penrose
What a choice. I will happily give way to the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
John Penrose
I will respond merely by saying that I hope that the period of banging on about Europe will be much shorter than it would be if we had more referendums about it in the future. I had thought that the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) wanted to intervene—[Interruption.] Clearly there were two minds with but a single thought.
The danger of requiring a super-majority is that it would be seen as a coded attempt by disappointed pro-Europeans to rerun the original referendum because they did not like the result. I supported the remain campaign, but even I think that a rerun would be a huge mistake. Whichever side we were on at the time, I hope that all of us here are democrats first, last and always.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I campaigned on the remain side, and I must say that I was disappointed with the negativity on both sides. However, negative arguments are made in general election campaigns as well, and I do not believe anyone would think we should challenge a general election result because one side used negative arguments.
John Penrose
I completely agree. Every time either the Lib Dems or the Labour party win a local council by-election, I am convinced that everyone has taken leave of their senses, but as a democrat I respect the result and accept it. I am sure everyone here would do the same, no matter which side of a particular debate they are on.
Tom Brake
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would like to respond—perhaps this is not for this debate but for another—to the emails that we have all had from people who have called for an independent body to assess the claims made during the course of a referendum campaign. Would he support that?
John Penrose
I worry about such proposals, because they could create a vehicle for making vexatious claims during a campaign as a way of trying to smear the opposition, whether they were making legitimate or illegitimate comments. The whole point about democratic campaigning in any election, as we all know well, is that if someone says something that we regard as an egregious slur on us, or our party, or on reality—it does not matter—the answer is not to run to the lawyers but to get out there and explain to the voters why what has been said is entirely wrong.
The country has voted to leave the EU. Whether we in this room individually agree with it or not, the decision has been made. If we now decide that we will not leave after all, and that we will hold another referendum instead, the outrage at an out-of-touch political class, deaf to the desire of the people who elected them, will be absolutely shattering.
Kwasi Kwarteng
That is precisely the assumption that many remainers had, at least at the beginning—that they would somehow win the second referendum. All the evidence I see, certainly in my constituency, suggests that there would be a resounding defeat for the remainers if we were to go down that route.
John Penrose
At a time when, with isolated but notable exceptions in both the Scottish independence referendum and other votes around the country, we as a democracy are suffering from declining turnout and voter registration, we all need to ask ourselves why part of people’s reason for backing the leave campaign was the cry of frustration at our democracy. I can think of nothing more dangerous or corrosive than if we in this place were to say, “We are not listening”, stick our fingers in our ears and refuse to honour the decisive verdict that has been rendered unto us, whatever side we started on in the referendum campaign.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Could not the remarks that the hon. Gentleman is making about the dreadful finality of the result equally have been made about the referendum in 1975 to go into the European Community?
John Penrose
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman’s point is. What I am arguing is that we have a clear democratic decision, regardless of what the lawyers may say, and democratically we owe it to the people who sent us here to listen to what they said. That is a simple point, but I worry that some people who are understandably disappointed—I was on the same side as them—are trying to find ways and reasons to comfort themselves and ignore that decision. I do not think we can. If we try to ignore it, voters will rightly ask, “What part of the word ‘leave’ is so hard for you all to understand?”
We have been given our marching orders. Brexit must mean Brexit, and it is up to every red-blooded democrat, no matter which side they were on before the result was known, to accept the clear electoral verdict and pull together to deliver it as best we can.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Several right hon. and hon. Members of the House have long believed, as we have heard—or not as we have heard, but I know some Members believe this—that Britain’s interests would be best served outside the European Union. Those Members campaigned passionately for Brexit and ardently believe that the result delivered on 23 June means that Brexit should be delivered immediately—no ifs, no buts and, frankly, no questions asked. It would be churlish not to congratulate them on the referendum result and acknowledge, as has been said, that 52% of the country or thereabouts voted to exit the European Union.
I listened to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union speaking on the Floor of the House just before this debate about what Brexit means, and he said that Brexit means that we will exit the European Union, but we must all concede—I really hope that this Chamber does—that, two and a half months down the line, we do not know what Brexit actually means in reality. We are living in uncertain times and that is why we are considering this petition today. We do not know what form Brexit will take or when it might happen. We do not know whether our future lies within the single market or outside of it.
When we talk about access to the single market after Brexit, what do we mean by that? Of course we will have access—North Korea has access. That is not what we are talking about. The question is on what terms the UK will obtain that access and at what cost? We also do not know what our trading relationships with the rest of the world will look like, and millions of European Union citizens who have made this country their home are living in uncertainty now and do not know what their status is. Many of the 4 million people who signed the petition are understandably very anxious about their future. That is why we are here in this Chamber.
There are many legitimate arguments. Many believe—I will come back to this—that there should be a vote in this House on Brexit when we are much clearer about what the Government plan. Some believe that the best way forward is a general election, where political parties can put their position to the electorate, and others quite rightly say, “No, we need a second referendum on a plan when we have seen it.” That is the nature of the debate we are having, even though some might muddy the waters.
James Cleverly
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s generosity. With regard to a second referendum on specifics of a renegotiated position, if the outcome of that was a rejection of the status quo, should the British people then be presented with a different negotiated position for Brexit, the removal of Brexit or another referendum? What would be the proposed question in that referendum?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to see this as I do. I believe that the country is already in the midst of a constitutional crisis. That is why there is currently a case in the High Court in both this country and Northern Ireland in relation to this topic. All I have outlined is that some people legitimately believe that one way out of the constitutional crisis is to put a plan to the people. The determinants of that plan are not a matter for today, but the principle requires debate. It is concerning that, given the decision we have made, which affects generations of young people, so many people who believe in sovereignty seem to want to limit debate in this House. We have spent minimal hours on Europe since 23 June, given the seriousness of the decision we are about to take.
Many people on both sides of the referendum debate would accept that the public were totally misled and lied to during the referendum. No one would accept that there is a clear plan for where to go from here and what we will do next, so there is a legitimate argument that, whatever the forthcoming Brexit plan looks like, it should be put to the people in a referendum, or it should be debated and voted on in Parliament, or there should be a general election on the issue. All three options have been ruled out by the Government, by the way. Yet there is still a vacuum. There is division and uncertainty, and that is the reason we are discussing the mechanism that we are debating today.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I want to add two points, and to ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees with them. One is that, whatever one’s view about whether there should be a vote in the House on triggering article 50, there should at least be a debate. The second is that whether to vote on article 50 is in a sense academic, because we will have to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 to give effect to our leaving the European Union. That will involve multiple votes, which will have knock-on impacts on existing legislation, which will need to be changed.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is right. That is the case, which is why it was breathtaking to hear that Britain will not be discussing Europe for much longer. If we exit the European Union, this House is about to be consumed with legislation that will probably be with us for more than a decade. One Whitehall Department alone, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has 1,200 pieces of legislation that would need to be repealed. The task ahead for the nation is gargantuan. We are perhaps talking about the sort of effort involved in reconstruction after the war, or something comparable to the birth or the loss of empire.
Mr Lammy
I have said that I should make some progress. Others have got to get in to make important contributions.
The other point is that uncertainty is bad for business and our economy. Last week a survey by Lloyds found that business confidence has dropped to its lowest level since December 2011. Uncertainty in Government is also bad news. If the whole of Whitehall is focused on trying to work out Brexit and then on trying to deliver it, where will the capacity be to tackle many other urgent issues that the country faces—the crisis in the NHS, youth unemployment, infrastructure and the rebalancing of the economy? Last week massive cuts to apprenticeships were announced. We need working-class young people to move into apprenticeships. How are we going to achieve those things when every Department is consumed with the subject of Brexit?
I am here on behalf of my constituents, and that is why I am very clear about the issue. Ordinary working people on low incomes will suffer the most in the man-made recession to come. As always, people who are living pay cheque to pay cheque, just about keeping their heads above water and making ends meet in insecure jobs will bear the brunt of any economic downturn. When unemployment rises tax receipts will fall. NHS spending, wages and investment will fall, and after years of austerity the Government will not have the money for a fiscal stimulus, or to provide a proper welfare safety net. People have been talking about agricultural areas. In counties such as Norfolk, which relied on EU subsidies, some people have been asking “Are we still going to get the EU subsidies?”
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Having been firm with our colleague from the Scottish National party, I should also be firm with the right hon. Gentleman. He has been very much in order so far, but he might like now to return to the subject of the debate.
Mr Lammy
You are absolutely right, Mr Gray. I was simply making the case that those EU subsidies will no longer be there. They will have gone and tax receipts will have fallen. It is for that reason that the way we resolve the constitutional crisis we are in is so important. The mechanism in the petition is of course but one way of doing that.
There has recently been a lot of talk about the gap between the rich and the poor, and the growing divide in society between the asset class and the underclass. Indeed, the fact that so many people voted for Brexit related to that. What I am worried about, and my reason for being here on behalf of my constituents, is the fact that the debate about inequality is likely, if funds are less, to turn into the old debate about absolute poverty. Absolute poverty is much worse, in any economy. That is why it is important that we have debates on the Floor of the House, as we are—something that we have not been able to do since 23 June.
I have already said that many British people, and certainly those who signed the petition—there are more out there; they email all the time—are understandably trying to do something on their own, individual, behalf. However, they of course recognise that linked to that democratic exercise another legitimate debate is going on—about sovereignty and the nature of Parliament, and whether Parliament should have a vote on the issue. It seems to me that the most fundamental tenet of our democracy is parliamentary sovereignty, and a decision of such significance must be debated and approved by Parliament. The Prime Minister says she wants to bring the country back together, and the best way to do that is to have its representative democracy look at the issues and debate them. With that conclusion we might begin to bring the country back together. Simply exercising a prerogative power, which is more akin to James II, is very unlikely to bring people back together. It will leave a huge division, not seen for many years, running through the country. It must be up to individual Members of Parliament to decide how they vote when the Government present a plan for what Brexit will look like, and the plan must be fully considered.
It is important to note that it has been said that the referendum
“does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented”.
Those are not the words of a bitter remain campaigner, but of the House of Commons Library briefing on the European Union Referendum Bill. It is important to think hard about the fact that when we voted on the referendum it was described to the House as advisory and non-binding. It was advice—to hear what the people had to say; but it was not binding. It was not two thirds. It was not a quadruple lock—all nations agreeing, so that we can move forward in a straightforward constitution. It was a non-binding advisory referendum. As such we need further mechanisms to hear that advice and really think about the detail of how we now move forward. What are hon. Members scared of? Why are they so scared of Parliament looking at it? Is it because the Government of the day are divided on the issue? Is that why they are scared about having such debate? I suspect it is.
We must also remember that 63% of the electorate did not vote for Brexit at all; that more than 2 million British expats were denied a vote, and 13 million more decided not even to cast their vote.
Mr Lammy
I will not give way. There was no two-thirds threshold as is required in other nations to validate a major constitutional change of this nature. There was no quadruple lock to ensure that the majority in each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom agreed with the change. Our nation is more divided than ever in my lifetime and we are living through an unprecedented period of uncertainty. There is no clarity on what lies ahead and no easy way to heal the divisions. While colleagues may disagree with me when it comes to Brexit, I cannot see a way out of this other than for the Government to present their plan for Brexit to Parliament so Members can approve or reject it on behalf of their constituents, or to present their plan to the people so they can have their say in either a second vote or in a general election. [Interruption.]
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I assume the applause upon my standing was not for me.
I am sorry to start my speech on such a downbeat note, but I feel I must express regret at the levels of intolerance that have crept into the public discourse on Brexit, both before the referendum and even more so since. Intolerance in the form of racism and xenophobia is deplorable, particularly due to its tendency to lead to hate and violence. I condemn examples of it wherever they are found; those responsible must be rooted out and face the full force of the law.
However, a new kind of intolerance has emerged in this country, demonstrated by those who proclaim to be the most progressive, broad-minded and dedicated to supposedly democratic ideals. They show themselves to be the opposite with this petition. They are intolerant of the view of their fellow citizens who happened to vote to leave the European Union. Conscious of your guidance, Mr Gray, I shall not seek to rerun the referendum campaign, but we should not treat the public as fools, which this petition does. We should remember that if we ask a question, the answer might not always be the one we expected or hoped for. Now, more than two months on from the referendum, the clamouring has not ceased. The proposal to rerun the referendum typifies that, as did the weekend’s anti-Brexit rally, at which the pinnacle of interest seemed to be that somebody had their beret stolen. They typify a rather unsettling desire to thwart or overturn the properly exercised democratic will of the country. While I understand the strength of feeling people hold on the issue, the behaviour and impetus behind the petition sadly reminds me of people going through the seven stages of grief.
William Wragg
Indeed, it is five. My hon. Friend is more learned on the matter. People seem to have got stuck somewhere around stage three and now oscillate wildly between denial, anger and bargaining. I could stand here and, perhaps rather churlishly, tell those who want a second referendum or to block article 50, whenever that might come about in the fullness of time, that they should pull themselves together, have confidence in themselves and show a bit of faith in their country. However, I realise that would be far too blunt, so I say gently to hon. Members who may have sympathy with the petition that they should have the good grace to accept the result of the referendum, see the opportunities that lie ahead and cherish the fact that they represent their constituents in this place and can make a difference to their lives here in the mother of all Parliaments.
I end my brief remarks by making mention of the late Peter Shore, a great Eurosceptic Labour politician. During the referendum, an extract of his speech at the Oxford Union on the eve of the ’75 referendum became something of a hit on social media. I, too, was very taken with it. He warned his audience 40 years ago not to despise the chance for their fellow citizens to exercise their democratic right to make a choice at the referendum. He argued passionately that Britain belonged to the world, rather than to the narrow confines of the European Economic Community. He closed by reminding his audience that our parliamentary sovereignty—our democracy—was not just one generation’s to fritter away, but was the inheritance of generations of our fellow countrymen and women. I can think of no finer trio of reasons, and I urge the rejection of the petition before us.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so brief. Perhaps other colleagues will follow his excellent example.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I start by picking up on a couple of points made by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). He referred to apprenticeship cuts, and I think issues about apprenticeships and training drove many people in the north, for instance, to vote for Brexit. The fact that the Government are now cutting apprenticeships funding will exacerbate the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to legislation. I wonder whether he would like to speculate on whether, in practice, when Ministers are presented with the opportunity to delete, I think, 7,000 pieces of EU-related legislation, they will actually want to do that in preference to promoting whatever the key project within their Department is, whether that is reforming the health service or education reforms. I suspect that the legislation is going to sit there for a very long time, because Ministers will have no interest whatsoever in getting rid of it.
To come to the subject—I am sure you will not allow me to deviate for much longer, Mr Gray—I congratulate the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on focusing exclusively on the subject of the petition. I will do so perhaps slightly more loosely than him, but I will focus on the issue of the second referendum.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a strong case for a debate about what could happen in future referendums if there is not a strong majority for constitutional change or a significant turnout. We could look at that matter again. The issue before us today, however, is whether there should be a second referendum following the one that has just taken place. My starting point is that there should not be a second referendum simply for the purpose of overturning that referendum, notwithstanding the fact that, I am afraid, I think the leave campaign lied blatantly throughout the campaign. I accept that the remain campaign perhaps also over-egged the pudding with some claims that were made, but the leave campaign lied particularly on the issue of the NHS, with the pledge of £350 million per week for the NHS when we left the European Union. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health about that and got a response from the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who said:
“Firstly, neither the Department nor its Ministers were involved in making or endorsing the statement that additional funding would go towards the NHS if the UK were to leave the EU.”
So if anyone was in any doubt, the Department of Health has made it clear that it is not expecting to get any more money as a result of our departure from the EU.
Kwasi Kwarteng
For the sake of fairness, I think we should say that there were outrageous claims from both sides, and I want to spell them out for the record. A punishment Budget—the most restrictive Budget since 1936— did not happen as a consequence of us voting to leave. I am also still waiting for house prices in London to fall by 20% so that I can actually buy a property.
Tom Brake
I say to the hon. Gentleman that we are only two months away from the referendum having taken place. Rather than saying everything is hunky-dory, he might want to wait a little bit longer to see whether everything is going according to his plan.
I do not believe that there should be an immediate second referendum, because I do not think we can have a never-ending referendum, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said. However, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham indicated, we must consider what will happen once article 50 has been triggered and the UK Government have spent up to two years identifying what they want to secure from the European Union on trade and other aspects of the negotiations. I imagine that the end of that process will probably be in about three years’ time, because I do not think the Prime Minister will invoke article 50 at the beginning of next year. It will possibly be mid-year, or even towards the end of next year. Two years from then and three years from now, once the Government have identified what they are seeking to secure from the EU, I would be very surprised if the British public did not feel that there was a need for them to have their say on the outcome of those negotiations before the two-year period was exhausted and the UK exited the European Union.
On the subject of article 50, I was surprised that for the people on the Brexit side who campaigned so heavily for sovereignty during the campaign—sovereignty was apparently key to many of their concerns—all of a sudden sovereignty was not such a big issue after all when Parliament asked to be given the sovereign right to debate and vote on triggering article 50. I ask them to check whether they are being entirely consistent in the arguments they are deploying. We should be allowed not only to debate article 50, as has been suggested, but to vote on it. My personal position is that article 50 goes hand in hand with Brexit. Having accepted the vote, I would find it difficult to try to block article 50, because the two things are connected. We cannot vote to leave and then try to block article 50—those things are, in effect, a package.
There will be protracted negotiations. Incidentally, I hoped that we would hear something during the first statement from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union about what he has been able to negotiate over the summer holidays. I had to leave his statement to get here, but 15 minutes in, we were still at the level of platitudes. There was absolutely no substance whatsoever to the statement that he was delivering. I do not know what he has done for the past two months—maybe he went off and had a long holiday—but certainly he has not been focusing on what Brexit means. We know that Brexit means Brexit, but that is a completely vacuous statement.
I hope that I have kept to the subject, Mr Gray, which is the issue of a second referendum. If the UK Government have secured in their discussions with the EU substantial protection of the rights of EU and UK citizens whose position is completely unclear and who want clarity; if they have secured substantial freedom of movement and the continuation of the UK in the single market; if they have maintained the environmental standards that the EU has, in some cases, enforced in the UK; if law enforcement and judicial co-operation continue as they are currently maintained at an EU level—the Secretary of State said in his statement that the Government wanted to expand on that area, which is welcome; if we have secured the protection of Erasmus; and if the travel and tourism benefits we derive from being in the European Union and the rights of the City are maintained, I am confident that if that package were put to a second referendum about three years from now, the British people would feel it was one of substance and one they would be willing to support.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I apologise to you, Mr Gray, and to the Chamber for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I was in the main Chamber questioning the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union about his statement on this very subject.
I doubt if any Member today has taken or actually will take the words of this petition literally. It would condemn us to go on having referendums so long as neither side gets 60% of the vote or, even if one side does, the turnout is less than 75%. It is a recipe not for a second referendum but for a neverendum. It is essentially an emotional call by an unprecedented number of our fellow citizens to set aside the result of the referendum. They back that up with a number of arguments.
First, they argue—we have heard it argued today—that the leave side won by lying. Accusations of lying are, of course, a feature of all election campaigns, but free elections provide us with an opportunity to rebut contentious points made by the other side. In particular, the remain campaign, with the frequent help of the BBC, repeatedly rubbished the slogan on the leave battle bus that highlighted our gross EU contribution of £350 million a week and implied we could spend it on the NHS. I personally never used that figure. I always referred to Britain’s net contribution of nearly £10 billion—some £200 million a week. I did not meet a single voter who changed their mind and decided not to vote leave on finding that the net contribution was only £200 million, rather than £350 million.
Mr Umunna
May I assure the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I am grateful for giving way, that an untold number of Labour voters in this country voted for us to leave the European Union on the basis that they believed £350 million extra per week would go into the NHS? There is no getting away from the commitment that was made and no wriggling around—“It was an aspiration,” or, “It was a mistake.” That was the commitment that many, many Labour voters believed would be delivered on if we left the European Union.
Mr Lilley
In that case, let me say two things. First, the hon. Gentleman and the remain side were singularly ineffective in rubbishing that claim, despite the fact that I heard it being rubbished many times. Secondly, he says that working-class voters—Labour voters—would have voted to stay if they had known it was only £200 million a week, but were prepared to vote to leave for £350 million. He has put a price on their vote of the difference between those two sums, which I do not find true.
Mr Lilley
I will continue, if I may.
If it was a lie for the leave side to refer to our gross contribution without netting off the money we get back, were not remain campaigners just as dishonest to focus on money we get back without mentioning the contribution we make? Remainers frequently claimed, with no rebuttal from the BBC, that the EU gives millions of pounds to universities, researchers, farmers, regions and so on, with no mention that British taxpayers contribute £2 or £3 for every £1 returned to us. They cannot have it both ways and say it is wrong for one side to mention the gross figure, but not for the other. I doubt if the outcome would have been any different if the leave battle bus had painted £200 million per week on its side, rather than £350 million. I met countless voters who said, “My heart is for leave, but my pocket says stay.” They were convinced by “Project Fear” that they would be worse off if we left the EU.
The Treasury analysis of the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU said that
“a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.”
On top of that, we were promised a punishment Budget that would take away benefits from the sick, the disabled and the elderly. None of those things, I am happy to say, have occurred. There has been some hope from one or two Opposition Members that they will occur in due course.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Does not the suggestion of a punishment Budget prove that the former Chancellor was a bluffer? He bluffed; he did not have a punishment Budget. By extension, his threat to Scotland of not sharing a currency was further evidence of yet another bluff.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
On the subject of a second referendum, Mr Peter Lilley.
Mr Lilley
The Scottish nationalists want to refer to the previous referendum, which they lost, but I will not be tempted down that path.
“Project Fear” could have become a self-fulfilling prophecy: I was rather afraid it might. In fact, in the month or two since the referendum, job listings are up 8% on last year; consumer spending is up 1.4%; manufacturing orders are at the highest they have been for 10 months; house builders have reported strong demand; and Moody’s is confident the UK will avoid a recession. That is clearly a disappointment to one or two Opposition Members, who were hoping for bad news to justify their “Project Fear”.
In one respect, they were right: sterling is, indeed, lower. However, the IMF—whose boss was famously once a member of the French national synchronised swimming team—joined in a synchronised campaign of gloom, saying that a leave vote would be bad to very, very bad. The IMF now welcomes the fact that the exchange rate move has removed some, but not all, of sterling’s previous overvaluation. Had the whole establishment of this country and of international unelected bureaucracies forecast what has occurred rather than what they predicted would occur, I cannot help feeling that the result would have been even more emphatically to leave than was the case.
The second argument for a second referendum is that the leave campaign had no plan for Brexit. That is a bit like saying that countries such as India, Canada, Australia and even the American colonies had no plan for independence. Of course they did, and we are the same. It is to take back control of our laws, our money and our borders. That is what countries do when they become independent. That is the purpose and that is the plan. By definition, that means we will not be part of the EU internal market. The precise trading arrangements we may have with the EU will depend on what it wants to arrange in its interests as well as ours.
There are only two realistic outcomes, both of which are perfectly acceptable to the UK. We could trade with the EU on WTO terms and the same basis as the EU’s three biggest trading partners—the US, China and Russia trade very successfully with the EU—which would mean facing tariffs averaging 4% on our exports, but that would be more than offset by the 12% improvement in competitiveness as a result of the change in sterling; or we could continue to trade on the current tariff-free basis. Neither option should require complex negotiations. To go from zero tariffs to zero tariffs is quite simple. To go from zero tariffs to WTO tariffs is quite simple. We should not be in for a prolonged and unnecessary delay in reaching agreement on one of those two options.
The final argument I want to deal with is that the referendum was only advisory. I debated daily with remainers—sometimes three times a day—but not once did a remain opponent say to the audience, “Oh by the way, this referendum is just advisory. If you give us the wrong advice we will ignore the result and remain in the EU anyway or perhaps call another referendum or vote against application of article 50 and the referendum result until we get the right result.” Did any Opposition Member say that to an audience and can they give me chapter and verse of them saying that they would treat the result as advisory and ignore it if they did not like it? Not one of them did. Now they are pretending that the whole thing was advisory. I forget which hon. Member said that was made clear during the debate.
On the contrary, the then Foreign Secretary, who introduced the Referendum Bill, said that it was giving the decision to the British people. When launching the campaign, the Prime Minister said:
“This is a straight democratic decision—staying in or leaving—and no Government can ignore that. Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper. For a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would be not just wrong, but undemocratic.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2016; Vol. 606, c. 24.]
It was spelled out at the beginning of the referendum debate and again and again during it that this was a decisive choice for the British people. If we ignore that choice now and treat the British people with contempt, we will undermine their respect for democracy and prove how little faith we have in it.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
This debate is nominally about the threshold that we should have applied to the EU referendum, the argument being that if the leave or remain vote secured less than 60% support in a turnout of less than 75% there should be a second referendum. For the benefit of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), the motion arises from a petition by a leave campaigner who presumably lacked confidence at the time that his side of the argument would be victorious.
Of course, the debate is no longer about thresholds, but the more substantial question of a second referendum. I will quickly dispose of the threshold issue and move to the wider debate that is raging on the main issue.
On thresholds, the aim of the petition is reminiscent for me of the amendment successfully tabled by our Labour colleague, George Cunningham, in 1978 to the Scotland Act 1978, which provided for a referendum on Scottish devolution. He was thoroughly opposed to devolution for Scotland and his amendment would have required at least 40% of registered Scottish electors to support devolution for it to go ahead. The amendment had the effect of killing off devolution then because, although a majority in the poll—51.62%—voted for devolution with 48.38% voting against, the turnout was 64%, so just 32.9% of registered electors had actually voted in favour. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) pointed out, the institution of that mechanism had the effect of promoting the status quo.
I do not think it is desirable generally to hold lots of referendums because our constituents send us here to make decisions based on the manifesto and set of values that we put forward. Ideally, we should trouble our constituents with referendums only in the most exceptional circumstances. When major constitutional issues are at stake, it seems to me that there is some justification for that.
When we do have a referendum, as on this issue, I am sceptical about applying the high threshold proposed in the petition. I think there is great difficulty in telling those who have supported the proposition which, on the face of it, they seem to have done by a clear majority, that it cannot be carried because there has been a low turnout. After all, we are all here and a low turnout has not been an obstacle to any of us being elected. A low turnout or lack of support for a particular Government—the present Government has the support of less than 25% of registered electors—does not stop them taking office. People might question whether thresholds and mechanisms that were not applied to us during an election should be applied in a referendum.
I worry that with such thresholds we may end up with people seeking deliberately to depress turnout in what is, whatever side of the argument they are on, a thoroughly active democratic exercise. I am not completely closed to a higher threshold, given the constitutional change, but I am sceptical.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making an interesting point, but does he agree that—as I have seen in correspondence—constituents who signed this petition were reflecting not the detail of thresholds and so on, but their feelings about this. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) talked about people being emotional and pulling themselves together, but the real issue is how people felt about being lied to, the lack of clarity on the options before them and the clash of mandates when it comes to devolved Administrations, certainly in Wales. Does he agree that there was something more fundamental about how people felt in the aftermath and that we must do a lot to bring people back together?
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, in my constituency of Boston and Skegness, the turnout was 77% and the vote to leave was also 77%. His point cuts both ways. If we were to have a second referendum, the sense of disempowerment in a constituency such as mine—and of going against democracy itself—would be palpable.
Mr Umunna
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was going to mention his constituency, where he kindly hosted a visit for me. For the record, he represents the area that had the highest leave vote. I represent the area that had the highest remain vote. I wanted to go to see whether we could perhaps heal some of the divisions in society. That miraculously takes me to my first point on the substantial issue and whether we should have a second referendum.
My first point is that, yes, the referendum clearly delivered a decisive result, but it was not a landslide for leave. Different generations voted differently and I certainly saw that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. Different areas of the UK voted in different ways, as did different ethnicities. It is incumbent on all of us, given all that I have just mentioned, to see how we can stitch together this fragile democracy of ours. It was very much in that spirit that I made the visit to Boston and that I came to this issue.
The second issue that I want to raise is this. I campaigned all over the country for us to stay in the European Union. I led the Labour In for Britain campaign in London. I was one of the main national spokespeople for Britain Stronger In Europe. However, it would be disingenuous to deny what has partly powered this petition: a split has arisen in the remain camp post the referendum result. Half of remainers think that Britain has voted to leave; that is what the polls show, and now the Government have a duty to carry out its wishes and get the best deal in order for us to leave the European Union. Slightly less but about half—I am sure that many of those here who applauded would fit into this category—think that we should ignore the vote to leave or seek to overturn it by way of the second referendum that we are talking about today. So inevitably what I am going to say will disappoint half the people I have been campaigning with over the last few months.
It is true that a lot of overblown claims, misleading promises and the rest were parroted by the leave campaign. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said that perhaps there were a few overblown claims on our side as well. However, in the end, the leave campaign won, and it is important that it is held to account now for what follows, because it was the victorious side in the debate. That is why I, the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) have set up Vote Leave Watch—to scrutinise what comes out of the deal and to seek to ensure that people are held to account. Frankly, it is as much to give a voice to the 48% who voted to remain as it is for the 52% who voted to leave to see whether promises have actually been delivered. In so doing, we will hopefully try to forge a national consensus and bring the two together.
Kwasi Kwarteng
I have just a quick question on the point that the hon. Gentleman made with respect to a split in the remain vote. Given that the remain vote, as polls suggest, is split and given that he is a keen observer of the political scene, does he honestly think that a second referendum held, say, within the next year would overturn the result that we saw on 23 June?
Mr Umunna
Oh, bearing in mind the clock, I was going to come on to that very point, but I just want to say that for remain campaigners to accept the will of the people is not to wave the white flag. It is not to say that the arguments that we have been making over many months are any less valid. But in the end we have somehow got to work out how we move forward and do so together.
One of the main reasons why I rejected the politics of many of those who voted for us to leave was that I felt that they peddled division and tried to set different groups against each other in our society—not all of them, but many. What I worry about in moving straight to the call for a second referendum is that it would further divide our country. Are we really saying that all the leave voters were completely brainwashed by all the misleading claims and myths that were parroted? Are we really saying that they were incapable of taking a step back, taking a view on all the different facts that were presented by either side and making their own judgment? Are we really saying—frankly, I have heard a lot of this—that they were just brainwashed by a bunch of right-wing tabloid newspapers? I am sorry; I just do not accept that argument, and there is a real danger, if we talk like that about people who voted to leave the European Union, that we are simply reinforcing the view that we are some kind of metropolitan elite who know better than other people. There is a real risk that we are seen to be patronising them.
So what are the circumstances in which I would entertain our having a second vote? A very clear set of promises were made. There would be £350 million going to the NHS every week. We would maintain full access to the single market, while not having the free movement that goes with it. EU citizens already here would be given the right to stay. As far as I am concerned, a set of clear pledges were given by all the different vote leave campaigners. I believe that if the deal that is reached at the end of this process is substantially and materially different from that that many of the leave voters believed they were promised, we could legitimately ask for a second referendum, but the fact is that we have not got to that point yet. If we go straight to one now, we will simply further divide our country. I say to people that as hard as it is—I feel emotional talking about it now—that we did not win the referendum, we have to keep this country of ours together and work out how we build those bridges. Regardless of where we sat in that debate, all of us have a duty to do that.
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I point out that if hon. Members restrict themselves to seven or eight minutes, we stand a chance of getting everybody in. If they go on longer than that, there will be people who are disappointed at the end.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) because he made some very powerful points.
The petition that we are discussing has more than 4 million signatures. To me at least, it is an understandable expression of pain and anger in response to a bitterly fought EU referendum campaign that has left this country, as the hon. Gentleman said, deeply divided. Pain and anger is certainly felt in my constituency of Brighton, Pavilion. It had one of the highest rates of people voting to remain—about 69%—and one of the highest numbers of people signing this petition: about 19,500 at the last count. But however much many of us might wish the outcome of the referendum had been different—I certainly do—and however much we might argue that the level of lies and misinformation during the campaign undermines the legitimacy of the outcome, I agree with those who have said clearly that trying to impose a retrospective threshold and in effect rerun the referendum is bad politics and worse democracy. Indeed, what better way would there be to reinforce the perception that the so-called metropolitan elites care nothing for those in more distant and perhaps disconnected communities than simply ignoring everything that they have said?
Instead, the anger and alienation felt by many who voted leave needs urgently to be addressed. For many, it was a howl of rage against exclusion and powerlessness. Their voices have to be heard, not just in the referendum but all year round. A crucial way to ensure that is to crack open the current political system, which encourages the main parties to listen almost exclusively to swing voters in marginal seats at general elections and ignore everybody else. If we are to set about healing the deep divisions in society that the referendum has laid bare, one task must be urgently to build a more representative, inclusive democracy, and that can be brought about only through electoral reform. If the Brexit campaigners were serious about giving people back control, a good place to start would be democratic control. A political system that delivers government on the basis of just 24% of the eligible vote clearly does not give us that.
Brexit means Brexit, so we are told. I believe that we need a second referendum on the terms of any Brexit deal because we have absolutely no idea what is on the other side of the door marked Brexit. We might have chosen to open that door, but even now, two months after the vote, we have no idea—not even the dimmest shape—of what on earth is on the other side.
The Government’s paper on alternatives to EU membership gave four options. The BBC lists five. The Centre for European Reform sets out seven. Which of those was voted for by those voting leave? None of them. How many will we end up with? Well, one of them. What parliamentary or, indeed, public scrutiny have we had of an actual plan to leave the EU? Absolutely none because there was not one and there is not one. That is why I strongly support not just maximum parliamentary scrutiny but calls for a further referendum on the terms of Brexit once they are clear, and on our future relationship with the EU, so that we can all assess what that looks like in the real world. During the campaign, when pressed on the alternative to EU membership, leave campaigners would squeal that they could not possibly be expected to answer those questions because they were not a Government in waiting, but rather they wanted the British people to be in control. What would fulfil that promise more thoroughly than ensuring that the public get the opportunity to cast a positive vote for what a potential Brexit looks like, in addition to their vote against remaining part of the EU?
Before a referendum on the terms of Brexit takes place, lessons must be learned and the Government need to take a long hard look at the Electoral Reform Society report called “Doing referendums differently”. Let me give just a few quotes from it. It says:
“There were glaring democratic deficiencies in the run-up to the vote, with previously unreleased polling showing that far too many people felt they were ill-informed about the issues…the top-down, personality-based nature of the debate failed to address major policies and subjects, leaving the public in the dark…misleading claims could be made with impunity.”
The Electoral Reform Society calls for
“a root and branch review of referendums, learning the lessons of the EU campaign to make sure the mistakes that were made in terms of regulation, tone and conduct are never repeated.”
I echo that call, because it is clear that there was so much misinformation; yes, it was on all sides, but I believe that on the leave side it was particularly egregious. We were told that we could end freedom of movement and keep full access to the single market. We were told that we could continue to benefit from being part of the single market, yet somehow take back control, make all our rules here in the UK and cease having to follow EU rules. Then there was the famous £350 million a week for the NHS; the truth is that we will not have any extra money, let alone an amount anywhere near the lie of all lies that disgraced the side of a perfectly innocent bus for months on end.
[Sir David Amess in the Chair]
Mr Lilley
Is the hon. Lady aware that the EU has free trade agreements with some 50 countries, only three of which have in return granted free movement of labour and made a contribution to the EU because their Governments were planning to enter the EU? The other 47 have free trade agreements with no free movement and no contribution. Why should we be different?
Caroline Lucas
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a wealth of difference between free trade and being part of the single market? He has talked at length about tariff barriers. The big issue about membership of the WTO is non-tariff barriers. He really should keep up with where the debate is at. That is where it is at right now. All this focus on tariffs was a very clever red herring for people who do not know about trade agreements, but I have actually studied them, I have worked on them for years, and I can tell him that there is a wealth of difference between trade agreements and membership of the single market. That was yet another lie perpetrated during the referendum campaign.
We need people to be given a say and to have real control over the terms of any Brexit deal. We need maximum public engagement and parliamentary scrutiny. That means that the Government must set out their plan for what they want Brexit to look like. They need to present that to the people in an early general election to secure a mandate that currently they do not have, then they need to ensure full and proper parliamentary debate and scrutiny, and only then allow MPs to vote on whether to invoke article 50 and set in train the formal process of leaving, so that we know what direction that train is going in. In addition, we should argue for wider public engagement, giving opportunities for meaningful input throughout the process, as well as maximising input from civil society organisations, NGOs, charities, businesses, local authorities and other stakeholders. To claim that we want to take back control of the UK’s future, but refuse measures to maximise parliamentary and public scrutiny, is unforgiveable, contradictory and harmful.
The Greens argued during the referendum campaign that outside the EU there is a very real danger that the UK will seek to compete with other countries by weakening social and environmental protections and by becoming, in effect, a tax haven. That is still the case. In the debate running up to a second referendum on the terms of a Brexit, some of the key issues that we will want to keep in mind, in terms of how we might vote in that second referendum, are, for example, whether we can maintain freedom of movement and full rights of EU citizens in the UK, whether we can continue to have full access to single market and, crucially, whether we can have the important environmental protections that we currently enjoy thanks to our EU membership—whether on air, water, or wildlife. It is not just keeping what we have; we should improve that and absolutely lock it down in law. One big concern that people have right now is about what will happen to the habitats directive and the birds directive; those are the gold standards for environmental protection and we need them to be preserved in any new environmental settlement. Perhaps that needs to be in a new environmental Act, but whatever happens, there must not be a race to the bottom on standards. We need to retain EU-derived workers’ rights, social and consumer protections and human rights, again, as a bare minimum that we should seek to build on. We should be putting young people first.
Finally, we should ask the Government right now to give a guarantee to EU nationals who have made this country their home in good faith; the Government should say right now that they are welcome to stay and that they have an absolute right to stay. Anything less is simply using people’s lives cynically as chips in a bargaining negotiation, and that is neither right nor moral.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
About a month before the referendum, when the result was widely expected to be successful for the remain campaign, I was asked on “Newsnight” whether I would respect the result of a close remain vote. I said that even if remain won by only by one vote, I would respect the decision. I note the point made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) that the petition was actually started by someone campaigning for leave, perhaps in the expectation of a remain win. Had that outcome happened—had remain been victorious in the referendum—and this petition had come before us, I would have stood up and given fundamentally the same speech that I am going to give now, saying that I respect the outcome of the referendum and suggesting that a second referendum is completely inappropriate. That is driven not by the result of the referendum but by what I believe to be a fundamental cornerstone of the democratic process.
The question on the ballot paper was clear and unambiguous, irrespective of what Members have said, or might say, in this debate. The question was whether the UK should leave the EU. Some Members who have spoken in this debate, and who I have spoken to about the issue, have attempted to retrofit a whole series of other implied questions into that referendum question. Questions about the nature of sovereignty, the nature of international trade and the nature of border controls are not unimportant, but they were not the question on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper was clear and unambiguous; to suggest that somehow it was other than that is grossly unfair.
A number of Members have said that the Government should be forced to abide by the campaign ideas of Vote Leave. I understand the thinking behind that, but it is worth remembering that Vote Leave was a cross-party, single-issue campaign group. There were Conservative politicians, Labour politicians and UK Independence party politicians in Vote Leave. I believe there may have been Liberal Democrat supporters, if not politicians, and there was a member of the Green party—just one, I know, but they were there none the less. It is ridiculous to demand that a Conservative Government be forced to deliver the agenda of a cross-party campaign group. If the remain campaign had won, no one with any credibility would have demanded that the Prime Minister bring Will Straw into the heart of Government to start dictating Government policy.
Mr Umunna
The hon. Gentleman and I had many debates during the referendum campaign, but, I am sorry, I do not accept his point about accountability. There is a complete contradiction here: many on the leave side made accountability and transparency the cornerstones of their campaign, but when people legitimately seek to hold members of the Government who voted leave to account for their pledges, they now say that there should be no accountability. To me, that is contradictory and not acceptable.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) resumes, may I say that the wind-ups will start at 7 o’clock, and by my maths at least five or six people still wish to speak? I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.
James Cleverly
The hon. Member for Streatham has pre-empted my next paragraph, so I thank him for that. He may read my speech to prove to him that I am not retrofitting anything.
Although it is not incumbent on the Government to take on board the campaign ideas and slogans of Vote Leave, it would be unwise of any Government to ignore some of the fundamental issues that came to the fore during the referendum campaign, such as the desire for greater domestic sovereignty for this country, for the reprioritisation of Government spending to domestic expenditure—for example, a significant upturn in spending on the national health service—for the control of borders and for greater international trade. Without a doubt, through the negotiation process and in the aftermath of our exit, the Government will need to put to the British people a credible plan on those issues and a whole host of others to have a realistic chance of being returned to government.
That brings me to my fundamental point. The way parliamentary democracy and parliamentary accountability work is that prospective Governments should put forward their ideas. Those ideas should be voted on by the British people, and those Governments should be held to account for the delivery or otherwise of that agenda.
It is helpful to think about the chronology. We are likely to see article 50 invoked relatively soon, I suspect. Then over the next couple of years, as timetabled by article 50, we will see a negotiated position, which I suspect will be in the public domain in the lead-up to the 2020 general election. The Prime Minister will no doubt put forward the Conservative plan for what Brexit will look like in real terms, including on immigration policy, public spending policy, trade policy, defence policy and so on. I am sure the Labour party—I will rephrase that: I hope the Labour party—will be able to put forward an agenda for what its impression of Brexit looks like, including its public spending priorities, immigration plans and international trade plans. The Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National party will do likewise. If one of those parties wishes to say, “Actually, do you know what? None of the deals on the table is good enough. We will rejoin the EU and overturn the explicit mandate from the EU referendum,” good luck to them. They can put that in front of the British people and let us see what they come up with.
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman is painting quite a tempting scenario. Is it not the case, first of all, that once article 50 is triggered, the United Kingdom will not have any unilateral right, and if we do not have a negotiated deal within two years, Europe will then be entitled to tell us what the deal is? Secondly, is it not the case that deciding to remain in the European Union is relatively straightforward? However, if the United Kingdom were to try to get back in as a new member state after leaving, the UK as it is now would fail the democracy test and would not be eligible for EU membership,
James Cleverly
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board. Although I disagree with some of the fundamentals underlying it, it is a valid point, but the status quo is as I described it.
James Cleverly
I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, then I will come to my concluding points.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. Does he not accept that there is another fundamental problem with issues on which competence is wholly devolved? An example is agriculture, fisheries and environmental policy in Wales and, I am sure, in other devolved Administrations. Those matters are now devolved, which was not the case when we went into the EU originally. There is not even any legislation on Welsh fisheries, for example; it is an England and Wales matter, but it is devolved. We will have to start from scratch on that. Does he not accept that the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government should have a full say on any package that is put together? Forget about whether we have a say here in Parliament; at the very least, that has to be the case.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I absolutely agree that the hon. Member for Braintree is being very generous, but there are now 45 minutes left and still six people wishing to speak.
James Cleverly
I will wrap up the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) in my conclusion. They are serious questions, and I do not pretend that I am an expert on regional devolved Government. I have come from London government, and I know that the settlement is different in various parts of the country. I will not try to second-guess how that might play out. There will be a lot of legislation, and we are going to be very busy, there are no two ways about that, but as has been said, the referendum result is not like declaring independence from a colonial power—or not in all respects. In some respects it is, in that the future is by definition unwritten. Political parties go into general elections outlining their visions for the future, and they are tested by the electorate. The nature of devolved government, whether to Scotland, Wales or wherever, will be part of that.
I conclude by saying to those calling for a second referendum, “Be careful what you wish for.” People have to understand the status quo, which is that we are leaving the EU. Ultimately, if the proposal in the petition were to be successful and a second referendum were to be put to the British people with a new set of criteria, that would be the status quo hurdle that people would be seeking to overcome with a turnout threshold of three quarters.
Everyone recognises that uncertainty is bad for business and unsettling for families. If we were to go down the route of a second referendum, we would introduce a whole load of new uncertainty that would be destabilising for families and bad for business. I strongly urge all Members to reject the proposal, move forward and deliver Brexit in a way that is beneficial to the British people. Those who want to put forward their version of what the future might look like should do so at the general election, and it will be tested by the British people at that point.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I congratulate my fellow member of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), on introducing this debate, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
In June 2010, I made my maiden speech by choice in a debate on European affairs, because I wanted to highlight the importance of EU funding to the north-east. I said in that speech:
“As a region, we stand stronger…and we will not accept the Government dismantling our strength by withdrawing regional support”.—[Official Report, 3 June 2010; Vol. 510, c. 642.]
Little did I imagine that six years later, Newcastle upon Tyne would be the first in the country to declare, by the narrowest of margins, that it wanted to remain in the EU and that the rest of the north-east would vote to leave.
I fully appreciate that those who voted to leave had many reasons for doing so, and they did not just comprise those
“pushed to the margins of society”,
in the words of the recent report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I have many constituents who voted to leave, and they want Brexit to go ahead as soon as possible. Indeed, a relatively small number of them contacted me very much to express that view. However, more than 90% of those who got in touch with me expressed serious concerns about the referendum and its outcome, including some who voted to leave and now regret that decision.
A common cause for concern is the basis on which the referendum was fought. I know that outlandish assertions were made on both sides of the debate, but the leave campaign made several high-profile claims about the benefits of Britain leaving the EU that were either demonstrably untrue or simply impossible to commit to. The most misleading one was given an air of legitimacy by the misuse of the NHS logo by Vote Leave—I wrote to the Health Minister about that during the campaign, and I understand that the NHS has sought legal advice about it. I know of at least one front-line health worker in Newcastle who decided to vote leave on the basis of the additional £350 million a week that would be directed to the NHS. Unlike the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), I agree with the recent conclusion of the Electoral Reform Society that we need to look at “doing referendums differently”. In particular, I agree that an official body should be set up with the task of intervening when misleading claims are made in future campaigns.
Many constituents also contacted me about the highly divisive and unpleasant nature of the referendum campaign. I fully acknowledge that feelings on Britain’s membership of the EU have run very high for many years. However, to exploit those feelings and stir up bigotry against those who appear to be different is unforgivable. A Britain that seeks to divide people is not a Britain that I want my, or anyone else’s, children to grow up in, and I find it incredibly distressing that anyone should have been made to feel unwelcome, or worse, as a result of that process. It is quite clear that that has happened and that the position is being made worse by the Government’s continued failure to confirm the long-term future of EU nationals in the UK.
Perhaps my constituents’ single biggest concern is the Government’s failure to anticipate or plan for the outcome of the referendum. The new Chancellor may have told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that he did not “see the need” for contingency planning but, frankly, that beggars belief. One of my constituents said that he was “left horrified” by the situation. Many are incredulous that the Government could have put the question to the British public without at least considering the possibility that they might not get the answer they wanted.
We now face weeks, months and even years of prolonged uncertainty about what “Brexit means Brexit” really means as we try to work through the incredible intricacies of extricating ourselves from the EU. What will Brexit mean for the countless individuals across the UK whose lives will be directly impacted by leaving the EU? Two of my constituents came to see me; they have worked in the EU for a decade but have no idea what will happen to the pension contributions they have made during that time. What will happen to our driving licences and our European health insurance cards once article 50 is triggered? That is a pretty important question for the millions of British citizens who regularly travel to the EU for work or holidays.
Under what circumstances will north-east firms be able to trade their goods and services to EU and non-EU countries in the future? That knowledge is crucial to the only region in the UK that consistently exports more than it imports, with some 58% of north-east exports currently going to the EU. What will happen to EU nationals who have made a life for themselves in the north-east, such as the 1,000 people who work in the NHS and the 600 university staff? Those are just two examples.
As one constituent asked me, what is the timescale for leaving the EU so that industry, academic institutions and other organisations have sufficient time to prepare? Crucially, what will happen to the £726 million of European funding due to the north-east over the next five years, not least because the north-east has received only 20% of its EU funding allocation so far? How will the Government ensure that the devolution deal—which is apparently still on the table for our region—is meaningful, given that it was largely underpinned by EU funding that the north-east was due to receive?
To what extent will the north-east be involved in the Brexit negotiations? Britain leaving the EU will clearly have a profound effect on my region and I share the determination of the North East Combined Authority that our voice is heard as loudly as anybody else’s throughout the process. How will the Government be held accountable for any of this?
Those are just some of the many unanswered questions about what Brexit actually means. Until we have the answers, we will not even know what Britain voted for in the referendum, and that is the crux of the matter. Nobody who voted on 23 June could possibly have known what life outside the EU would actually look like and, more than two months on from the referendum, we are no closer to the truth. The north-east will work together to make the best of this mess, but to do so we need answers to all those questions quickly.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
Almost two hours into the debate, there has been unanimity in this room. No one has actually said that they want to rerun the referendum; despite the fact that it has been somewhat fraught between the sides, the debate has found that agreement. People who have spoken may not believe that. Indeed, people in the Public Gallery and people who signed the e-petition may have hoped for something else, but no one has said, “Let’s rerun the referendum.” That is a good thing. I certainly do not want the referendum to take place again for a number of reasons, which I will outline.
I feel sorry for my friend, the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who was called to order, but rightly so. After some of the arguments he put forward, the House may have felt a little bit like how Moses must have felt when he said to the children of Israel, “I am going to take you to a promised land that is flowing with milk and honey. Follow me out of slavery. Leave the building of these terrible buildings to the Egyptians. We’ll take you there.” And, a few steps out of Egypt, they said, “Oh, let’s go back. We can’t really see where we’re going. We don’t like this. There’s a big sea in front of us, which won’t part. We’ll have to find a different way.” Unfortunately, I think that that is how Moses must have felt. Therefore, maybe we can take some hope out of this because there is a promised land and a better place, and it will be when we Brexit fully and completely from the EU.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Paisley
I will, briefly. I am only going to give way this once and the hon. Lady is the lucky contender.
Dr Whiteford
To continue the hon. Gentleman’s analogy, does he share my fear that we might be walking around in the wilderness for 40 years?
Ian Paisley
I love it. The analogy is brilliant because for the past 40 years we have been walking in the wilderness of the EU and at last we see the promised land. We are getting there. We are not even four months in and I think that the promised land—the horizon—is more than there.
I agree with something that was said by an earlier contributor [Interruption.] No, I will not give way again because it is unfair on the remaining five speakers. It would be a real slap in the face if we did what some people want us to do—have the vote again. That would say to the people, “You voted, but damn you. We’re going to make you vote again until we get the right result.” People have mentioned urban elites, metropolitan elites and all the rest of it, and that approach would just be arrogant. We are here as servants of the people and, as servants, we must do what the people have asked us to do. We seldom trouble the people with referendums.
Ian Paisley
No, I will not give way again. I have said clearly that it would be unfair on the other five people who want to speak.
It would be unfair for us to trouble the people—to say, “Give us your view” and then, “Damn you. We’re going to ignore you.” That would be immoral and absolutely wrong.
Another point I agree with is that we must be careful what we ask for. If we say that there will be huge thresholds in the future, what if, at some time in the future—and we all know this would be madness—someone crazy decided to pursue the crazy notion that we should have a referendum on, say, Scotland leaving the Union? If the result was wrong because we decided that the wrong result emerged or if there were not enough votes for that wrong result and we said, “Let’s have it again until you give us the result we want”, I would feel insulted for the Scottish people as I feel insulted now when some people tell me, “You voted leave, but it is not the right result and we’ve got to have that vote again.” That is immoral, wrong and anti-democratic. It is about time we listened to the people and put in place what the people want even if some of us find it distasteful and if it is not what we want to do.
Turning briefly to the petition, I have been told by some who have emailed me—those keyboard warlords in my constituency—that I had better turn up to this debate, vote in a particular way and have a rerun of the referendum because thousands of them have signed the petition. Of course, I looked closely at the petition and I have heard some of the arguments, but only 2,479 people from my constituency signed or emailed that petition. Frankly, I get larger petitions for rural potholes in my constituency. That is not a joke.
I had a petition with thousands more signatories for caravan legislation in the previous Parliament. As parliamentarians, we must remember to avoid the view that we are ruled by the tap of a keyboard and that just because someone taps “send” on a keyboard, we had better crack to that and jump to that particular order. We take our judgment seriously and we are here, as Burke said, to give our judgment and to give of our industry. We are not here to be told, at the click of a keyboard, “That’s the way you should vote in the future.” We should all, as parliamentarians, take that responsibility very seriously indeed because that is our role and our job.
Tens of thousands of people who signed the petition did so fraudulently. I am not dismissing the millions who genuinely signed the petition, but 77,000 signatures have been wiped out. I looked through the petition today, and someone signed it from the Solomon Islands. Tens of thousands of people have signed it from France. Frankly, one of the reasons why we voted to leave the EU was because we want to take decisions about ourselves and about our own country without jumping to the will of people outside this country. We should therefore not allow ourselves to be bullied by petitions; we should do what the people have told us to do and implement the result properly.
Finally, I agree with the argument that the debate was not good enough and was flawed on all sides. I think we can all share that view. Many a time during the leave campaign when I tried to raise agricultural issues and the importance of ensuring that we have an agriculture deal post-Brexit, I was told, “Oh, no, this is not about that detail. This is about sovereignty. Get on to that. That is what you must talk about.” When I got on to sovereignty, the same people on the remain side were saying, “But what about the farmers? What will they do? What will they do for their single-farm payment?” That is the nature of the maelstrom we are in. In politics we have to make those arguments. It is upon us if we fail to make those arguments, but it is also upon the media at times for not allowing a proper debate on many of these issues. The media were not interested in pursuing the details of what we were saying. Our campaign produced a detailed 100-page document on many of the key issues about future trade negotiations, and it got a tiny line in the newspaper before the newspaper went off on something else altogether. If there is a future referendum on any other subject, the media bears some responsibility for a proper and full debate.
Of course, we now have the madness that says that any bad news is all because of Brexit and that any good news is because there has not been a Brexit yet. We cannot have that nonsense. We are moving to Brexit, and the faster we get there the better for clarity, for all our country and for all our people’s sake. The hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber introduced the motion, and he is a great lad from bonny Scotland. I get on very well with him, and he is my namesake, but this sort of thing sounds a bit like being a bad loser. We have to pull together and get the best deal for the entire United Kingdom.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Nearly 17,500 people in Ealing Central and Acton signed this petition and 72% of my constituents wanted to remain, so I am here on their behalf. When the enormity of the result set in on that night—I remember that the rest of the country did not go the same way—I was saying to people that if there were a vote on the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, I would have no hesitation in voting against, but we are not talking about that today. We are talking about this petition, which states that any referendum should have a 60% vote one way or the other and that there should be a 75% turnout. In answer to that, the Government have already said that the referendum was a democratic exercise in which 33 million people had their say and that the goalposts cannot be moved afterwards. I accept that logic. We cannot rerun a football match if we do not get the result we want. I was in Iceland this summer, and the people had the match ball from that horrible game just so they could rub salt into the wounds of English holidaymakers.
I accept all that. There is no parallel or precedent for what we have done. People say that 2016 is one of those years that proves the curse, “May you live in interesting times.” There have been a lot of celebrity deaths: David Bowie; Alan Rickman, who lived in Acton; and Muhammad Ali. Many of my constituents are going through a grieving process, and the saddest thing of all is “Britain in the EU, RIP.” In life, the probability of death is always one, but many of my constituents feel that the referendum result was not inevitable. The referendum was meant to put a lid on the issue and put it to bed. The previous Prime Minister was cowed by his own party’s internal politics, and this was meant to signal a full stop, but it feels as if we have uncorked a genie from a bottle, opened Pandora’s box or opened a can of worms—pick a cliché. The consequences are much wider ranging than any normal piece of legislation, because 40 years of law making will have to be undone, which will not be an easy process. There are two new Government Departments for a start.
We have all heard anecdotes and stories. I spoke to the head of Grange Primary School this morning, and he said that the day after the referendum parents, rather than children, from the settled EU population were in tears and fearing the worst. They thought that people would say, “Go home now.” Apparently things have not been as bad as they thought, but business people have lost contracts. We have a lot of Japanese residents in my seat, and many of the Japanese companies for which they work are saying that they will take their wares elsewhere. We are where we are.
I campaigned to remain, and I am the sort of person who is into building bridges rather than constructing walls, unlike Donald Trump in America. I was disappointed by the result, and I have to accept that the sky has not fallen in, yet. There is an argument that referendums are quite un-British. Why did we have this referendum at all? Some people in my party blame our current leader, but if there is one person whose door we can lay this at it is the previous Prime Minister. We are not Switzerland. There is an argument that we should not trust experts, and a good weight of expert opinion seems to have gone out of the window. The template seems to have been set in the three-hour statement he made when we came back on the Monday after the referendum. He got three hours of questions on all sorts of different aspects of Brexit, including hate crime and all the economic stuff, and the two responses he seemed to have were, “We must accept the will of the people” and, “That is a matter for my successor.” He seemed to say those two things, in either order, in answer to everything.
We cannot carry on with business as usual because things have been so drastically altered—a new political settlement lies ahead—but some safeguards need to be put in place if we ever have another referendum in this country. Safety valves and safeguards are an absolute necessity, not just a feasible prospect. The thresholds in the petition are quite high: 60% have to vote one way or the other and there has to be a 75% turnout. When he was Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) probably thought that the vote would go the way of his other referendums. The referendum in 2011 on the alternative vote had a turnout of 42%, with 69% voting against, so it would have satisfied one of the thresholds but not the other. There is something in the argument that thresholds would protect us from close calls, but I do not know exactly where we should set the numbers.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr Huq
There is limited time left and I have waited ages, so I would rather not give way. I will talk to my right hon. Friend afterwards.
Any mobile phone contract now has a cooling-off period. There is a sense of buyer’s remorse doing the rounds. In a 72%-in constituency, I have had emails from people saying that they did not realise that leave would win. France bans opinion polls in the run-up to a vote, and we could introduce that safeguard. We are not saying that we should rerun exactly the same question, but we could ban opinion polls in the run-up to a future vote.
Nobody knows what “Brexit means Brexit” means. Members on both sides of the House have mooted the idea of having some sort of accountability process. At a general election both sides have a manifesto with codified promises. Perhaps in future the lead campaigns on both sides could have the same. We have heard that most of the promises were not worth the paper they were written on or the cost of the paint used to write the lies on the side of the bus. I advocate that both sides should have proper manifestos from now on. Yes, 48% voted the wrong way—or the right way, depending on how we look at it—but that cannot really be called a ringing endorsement. Maybe we should have some facts because it seems quite possible to do mendacity in these referendums.
From all the Government’s indications, rerunning a referendum that went the wrong way for our side is not an option but I argue for introducing certain measures. I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who has now left the Chamber—[Interruption.] I am just concluding. This is my last sentence. We should have a referendum on the terms of Brexit, because nobody knew what they were voting on, so I advocate having a referendum on what comes after the negotiations.
I am being told to wind up. There is an American saying: “The people have spoken, the b******s.” In some sense, I feel that way. In short, we remainers are down, but hopefully not out—not yet, anyway.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
I would be grateful if the four remaining colleagues took five minutes each, without interruptions.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I will be as brief as I can, Sir David. I never thought of the referendum as a telephone contract before; I thought it was slightly more important than that. First, I am against the wording of the petition. If we put a threshold on turnout, it would simply be an incentive for people to stay at home; it would value their abstention like a vote. If we demand 60% voting one way, we would be saying that some votes are worth more than others, and that is a very non-UK tradition.
My second point is that the enthusiasm from both sides, before and after the referendum, has given the lie to what was said in opposition to having a referendum: that nobody cared about Europe. No political debate in this country since I have been in politics has raised such passion and commitment on both sides. Probably we should have had the referendum a good deal sooner than we did.
Thirdly, on the argument for having another referendum, I have looked through the record of the Second Reading debate on 9 June, and I cannot find one speaker in that debate, including some of the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today in favour of a second referendum, who was in favour of a second referendum or a referendum on the detail. It is sourness from losers who want another referendum, and it is being wrapped up as, “All right, we’ve lost the referendum; we’re out. We accept that—we’re democrats—but we’ll look at the detail.”
However, if we sit back and think about what that means, we find that it means complete uncertainty until the details are sorted out and a referendum is held. Although right hon. and hon. Members have said that it will not be another in/out referendum but will be about the details, if the details are rejected, it means either a third referendum or a reversal of the first referendum. In practice, it is a repeat referendum, which might require a third or fourth referendum, depending on how the legislation was worded. I am afraid that despite all the casuistry that has been used, it is an argument to have another referendum on the same issue.
An argument was made and it has been dealt with a bit. I strongly approve of the tone used by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) in this debate; I think that we need more of that and less aggression. He highlighted, as have other Members, the number of Labour voters and of poor and dispossessed people who voted out. It has been suggested that those people did not know what they were doing—that in some sense they were duped, or were voting out of anger and dispossession. That was not my experience. On the day of the referendum, I was out in my constituency, in what is either the poorest or the third poorest ward in the country, depending on how we count such things. I talked to people who were motivated to vote: some did not normally vote in elections, some did; some voted Labour, some did not. They did not say, “I am very angry and dispossessed.” They were voting out of a sense of patriotism and a belief that this country should be a self-governing democracy.
There is something insulting, particularly from Labour politicians, in saying that such people were just voting out of anger and did not know what they were doing. They certainly did know, and given that 70% of Labour constituencies voted to leave the EU, the Labour party has a great deal of serious thinking to do about how we relate to that. That is why I appreciated the statement that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham made about trying to bring things together.
Finally, some in this debate have made claims about pledges made during the referendum. Let us be absolutely clear: lies or distortions—call them what you like—came from both sides in the referendum. In that sense, it was no different from a general election. In every general and local election that I have been in, I have thought my opponents were telling lies, and could justify it on many occasions. We would rerun every general election if we had to do so because lies had been told. The nature of debate in this country is to expose those lies, and the strength of our democracy means that they are exposed.
I was a member of the Vote Leave board. When we debated or said things, there was no idea that we could commit a Conservative Government to doing something. When I was asked “What does this mean?” during the 50 or 60 debates that I did in the run-up to the referendum, I said, “What we are actually voting for is the freedom for a United Kingdom Government to make decisions. I can’t commit that Government to doing anything, and neither can anybody else in this campaign.” To say that we have to hold to account those who made commitments, statements or arguments during the debate is simply nonsense in the kind of parliamentary democracy that we live in.
We should see the debate for a second referendum as what it is: people being angry because they have lost some hope. That will dissipate, and we can bring the country together. It would be dangerous, damaging and undemocratic to have a second referendum on the issue.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. One reason why the petition had so many signatories is that there was some confusion about what Brexit might mean, and what “Brexit means Brexit” might mean. However, a consensus has now been clearly established in Westminster Hall that Brexit means breakfast. When I said that before the summer, the BBC thought it was a slip of the tongue, but my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) has confirmed that it is in fact the case. Whether it is a dog’s breakfast or a full Scottish breakfast has yet to be determined, but the Prime Minister has appointed some cereal Brexiteers to lead the negotiations. Perhaps it is no surprise that some of them are getting a frostier reception in European capitals, and that some of our neighbours just want to say cheerio to the UK as soon as possible.
I will reflect briefly on the petition system and how we got to this debate, the issue of thresholds and referendums and the differential result across the UK. Four million signatures was a remarkable achievement, as was the rapid pace at which it was achieved. The irony has been noted that the petition was started by a leave supporter who has since disowned it.
These Monday afternoon debates are becoming something of a showpiece, and a bit box-office. Often, this Chamber is busier than the main Chamber, although not perhaps this afternoon, given the two hours for which the Brexit Minister spoke. We are only too aware, though, that Parliament debating something is different from Parliament deciding something. We must be careful that the petition system does not give constituents the impression—as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) suggested, some constituents do get this impression—that these debates will lead to an immediate change of policy. We all have a responsibility, as do the media, to be clear about what we are trying to achieve in these debates. As a member of the Procedure Committee, I will be considering how we can do so. The Government should listen to what the Procedure Committee said about private Members’ Bills, so that we Back Benchers have more opportunity to bring to the House concrete legislative changes.
The issue of thresholds is very important. The threshold in the 1978 Scottish Assembly referendum has been mentioned; if that threshold had been in place in this referendum, we would not have had a leave vote. The Scottish National party proposed the four-nation lock; if that had been accepted, the leave vote would not have stood either. The SNP reserves the right to question the result, and particularly the result as it pertains to Scotland, because we did not vote for the referendum legislation in the first place: we did not see the need for a referendum and we warned of exactly the kind of situation we have ended up in.
I was interested to hear from the champions of participatory democracy on the Government Benches this evening. I had understood that Parliament was sovereign and had the final say, but now it appears that they are prepared to concede some of that sovereignty to the people, which we are very happy to accept, because in Scotland we have always accepted the sovereignty of the people. Tomorrow in this Chamber we will debate the claim of right for Scotland, which accepts the right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their own needs.
The reality is that the people of Scotland have chosen to remain in the European Union, so that now has to form part of the UK Government’s consideration as they take forward their negotiating position. Although there may not be a second referendum on Brexit, there must be an opportunity for Parliament to express its will and its view on the article 50 process and on the results of the negotiations. As SNP parliamentarians, we will not vote for any proposal that would take Scotland out of the European Union against its will, and we will resist attempts to bypass Parliament in the process.
I understand and share the frustration of my constituents, more than 5,000 of whom signed the petition—the highest number in Scotland outside Edinburgh, interestingly enough. Some 78% of my constituents voted to remain; that has to be taken into account, and I hope the UK Government will engage with the Brexit Minister who has been appointed by the Scottish Government—that shows the seriousness of the Scottish Government in trying to find a solution that can work within the result that has been delivered. But at the end of the day, if there is a material change in circumstances—it was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) use that phrase—we reserve the right to ask for another referendum—on the question of Scottish independence.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I will try to cut out from my speech all the points that have already been made, to allow my colleagues time to speak.
Some 23,815 people in Bristol West signed this e-petition —I think that was the second-highest number—and in the referendum more than 80% of my constituents voted to remain. Many have told me of their sadness at the result. I know it will make some of my constituents unhappy, but I believe it is not right to hold a second referendum.
I shall briefly give the arguments for a second referendum and why I do not support them. Some have said that they feel the leave campaign was based on misinformation or lack of clear information; as others have said, that can also be said of the remain campaign that I fought as part of. Another argument for a second referendum is that the details of the deal were not known or clear at the time of the first; my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made good points on that topic. Others have said that they would like MPs to scrutinise the detail of the deal, to hold the Government to account and to hold the Prime Minister’s feet metaphorically to the fire over every detail, but that they do not want another referendum. That is where my heart lies, and I feel many of my constituents are going to back me on it—I hope most will, if they hear my reasons.
Some of my constituents have told me that, no matter how sad they are, they feel it is important to respect the democratic process. Many people felt involved in this referendum and were moved to vote for the first time in years. It would be tragic if those people were given the idea that their views had been ridden roughshod over and were told that they did not count. However, my constituents have many concerns and want to ensure that there is proper democratic accountability, and I believe that that is where the solution lies. We need to act in a way that does not tell voters who voted leave that their views can be dismissed, but that also takes into account those who are concerned about what happens next.
The Prime Minister has indicated that the Government will not put the Brexit settlement to a vote in the House of Commons before article 50 is invoked. Indeed, I sat through the statement made earlier by the Secretary of State for Brexit and he did not mention that. In the referendum campaign, leave campaigners said repeatedly that Parliament should be sovereign. I particularly recall the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) making much of that point in each of our many vigorous, lively and enjoyable debates. I believe parliamentary sovereignty is now being flouted, because the House is being denied the opportunity to debate the Brexit settlement fully and to vote on it before article 50 is triggered and the clock starts to tick. Once it is triggered, we all know that that will be it: we will be out in two years, with or without a good deal.
People of all views on Brexit, whether they voted leave or remain in the referendum, will want to know at least some of the details and that they are going to be carefully scrutinised. They will want their views to be represented in Parliament by their democratically elected Members of Parliament and for them to be given a vote or votes on that settlement. I believe many, perhaps most, of those people calling for a second referendum—I hope that includes my own constituents—would be satisfied with delegating scrutiny of the detail to their elected Member, and for us to be trusted to vote against or for invoking article 50, until we are satisfied that it is a good deal for the UK. Again, I am sure that those who voted leave would also want us to have that scrutiny.
Finally, I believe that my constituents want to know that I have been given the chance to defend workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer regulations; to stand up for the EU citizens who have made Bristol their home; to ensure that the world-class university in my constituency has had the opportunity to renegotiate partnerships to carry out vital research; and to find ways for Airbus and other big and small local employers to manage their multi-European workforce and the rules and regulations of trade. They want to know that I will be able to represent them in a debate and in a vote. If the Government would be so kind as to agree that article 50 will not be triggered without the consent of Parliament first, a clear plan in place, and full and proper scrutiny of that negotiated plan, I believe that that would satisfy most of those who currently ask for a second referendum, including the people of Bristol West who I represent.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
This has been a curious debate, hasn’t it? It has been a bit like the referendum: there was an issue on the paper, but Members have largely talked about something else. Perhaps that is partly because of the slightly unfortunate scheduling of this debate at the same time as a major statement in the Chamber. Maybe some of the points that have been made would have been better raised in the main Chamber, but I chose to be here today because the numbers in constituencies like mine and those in similar cities are absolutely staggering, with 17,000 to 20,000 people signing the petition. That comes as no surprise to me, because of the strength of feeling that exists. I see the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) sitting opposite me; he and I are in the same county, but it is a divided county with very different views. In my city, Cambridge, there is passion about the European Union and a real and genuine sense of loss, worry and concern. That is why I am here.
One point I have taken from the debate so far is about the 52% and the 48%. In a way, the 48% knew what they were voting for—they did not necessarily know everything about the European Union, but it was the status quo. The problem is that the 52% were voting for a whole range of different things. That is the issue before us now: some Members here today clearly want a hard Brexit—to separate, get away as quickly as possible and go off to the promised land—but there is a whole spectrum of ways out. That is why the question whether there should be a further decision is so important.
For reasons of brevity, I will give just two examples. The issue of the EU citizens who live and work in my city is huge. The council leader told us at a very big rally in the city on Saturday that there are 9,000 EU citizens living and working around the area, and their status is uncertain at the moment. We can argue about whether certainty should be given to them—I strongly feel that it should—but there is uncertainty at the moment, and it is likely that as time passes people will begin to drift away, which will have a negative impact on the city. If there is a deal that gives absolute certainty, that is different from a deal that is uncertain.
Let us look also at environmental issues, which are dear to many of my constituents. If we look at nature directives such as those on birds and on clean beaches, we see that we have much stronger legislation from Europe than from our own Parliament. If that legislation is incorporated into UK law, the situation will be different from if it is not. People would make different decisions depending on what happens with that.
Of course we cannot rerun 23 June; the world has moved on. Not only has Britain changed, but Europe has changed, and the situation will be very different in the months and years ahead. But surely that is the point of politics, and that is why there will be a further decision at some point in the future. Whether that is at a second referendum or a general election, I passionately believe that there will be a further decision.
There has been passion from the leave side in this debate, but there is also passion on the pro-European side, among those of us who believe passionately in the European Union, are proud of what it has achieved and want to remain part of it. I can assure those who have fought with such passion for 20 or 30 years to get us out that there are Opposition Members who will fight for just as long to keep us in.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the three remaining speakers that they should leave 30 seconds for Mr Blackford to respond.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
This is an interesting debate to attempt to sum up. I clearly do not have time to address all the interesting points that have been made. I apologise to Members whose constituencies I am not familiar with, and also if I miss out their “right honourable” titles. If I do not have time to get around all the points that have been made, Members can assume that if they said something that I agree with, their point was very well made, and if they said something that I disagree with, their arguments were fatally flawed and really should not be heard again.
I have a huge amount of sympathy with the intentions of the 4 million-plus people who signed the petition, but in my heart of hearts I cannot support the petition because of its wording. Nor can I support its general thrust, which is that we should have another referendum on EU membership. The most fundamental of my political beliefs is that the people are sovereign. The sovereignty of the people means that people have the right to be wrong and to take decisions that I personally disagree with. I have had quite a lot of practice at being gutted and devastated about referendum results and at having people who trust me to act on their behalf begging me to force a rerun because there must have been some mistake. I have had to say to them, “I’m sorry, it’s not the way I wanted it to happen.” In both cases, the result did not reflect the way people in Fife voted, but it reflected how the people as a whole voted. We have to respect that. As part of that, though, I will demand and insist that the people of my country have their wish respected as well. That is a red line as far as I am concerned.
We cannot ignore the frustration we are seeing. It is wrong to impugn the integrity, character and honesty of the 4 million people who have asked for a second referendum. I do not impugn the integrity or honesty of the 4 million people who voted UKIP—I suspect that there is not an awful lot of overlap between those two groups of 4 million. However passionately and fundamentally I might disagree with someone else’s view, I will always stand by their right to express it. One of the ills of the politics that we are now seeing come to fruition is that we are far too quick to criticise people’s integrity and question their motives just because they have views that differ strongly from our own. I welcome the contributions that have been made on both sides of the debate, even though I felt that some of them showed poor analysis and I could not possibly agree with them.
I shall pick up on one or two key points. A Labour Member made an interesting intervention early in the debate—I am sorry, but I cannot remember who it was and whether they are still present—suggesting that the demand for a second referendum is damaging to our democracy. No, the demand for a second referendum is a strong symptom of the fact that our democracy is already severely, if not fatally, damaged. A fundamental test of any democratic process should always be that the losers accept that the contest was fair. In this case, a substantial number of the losers do not believe that. If they are honest about it, a substantial number of the winners are probably also not happy about the way in which the contest was won.
Nevertheless, we cannot attempt to rerun the contest. Like other Members, there may be circumstances in which I would support another referendum to confirm our exit from the European Union, although I am not yet convinced about that. We have to stop and ask ourselves: how have weaknesses been allowed to develop for so long in this, the so-called mother of all Parliaments, such that a Government can embark on a course that leads to something that the vast majority of that Government, including the then Prime Minister himself, were convinced would be catastrophic for the nations they had been elected to serve and to lead? How can a Government who had the support of only 36% of those who bothered to turn out and vote lead four nations of 60 million-plus people down a path on which that same Government did not want to embark, when two of the four equal partner nations were determined not to embark on that path? We have been led into a position from which I can see no way for England and Wales to retain their membership of the European Union. If or when they change their minds and try to get back in, I wish them the best of luck, but I cannot see an acceptable way for them to retain membership.
It is unacceptable to suggest that Scotland and/or Northern Ireland just have to follow suit. What the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) said was interesting. I agree with him that we can never say, “Thank you very much for giving us your opinion, but damn you, we’re going to ignore you,” but 57.8% of people in Northern Ireland said that they wanted to stay in the European Union. I am not prepared to say to those citizens of one of the nations of these islands, “Damn you, we’re going to ignore you and take you out of the EU, even if you don’t want to go.”
There has been a lot of discussion about the nature of the wildly untrue statements and promises that were made during the referendum campaign. It genuinely scares me that Members of Parliament—honourable Members of Parliament—can sit here in an open forum and say, “Yeah, but people tell lies in general elections and council elections. It is just part of the system.” It should never be part of the system. It is appalling that a Member of this Parliament was found by a court of law to have told a blatant lie, but the law does not provide for that person to be forced to seek re-election through a by-election. There is something fundamentally wrong if the political system not only tacitly but now explicitly accepts that telling lies is an accepted part of the political process. If this whole shambolic affair does nothing more than create a situation in which lies and politics and public life are no longer allowed to coexist, perhaps the cloud will have a bit of a silver lining.
As I mentioned, I have been through two referendums—I hope I do not lose the third, because I think if I lose three times I am out altogether—and the contrast between them could not have been more marked. Other Members have mentioned the Electoral Reform Society report, which highlighted many concerns. I shall give one example. On the Sunday after the Scottish independence referendum, I, along with a lot of campaigners on both sides of the debate, was invited by my local church to attend one of the services of reconciliation that took place the length and breadth of the country. Yes, no and don’t know campaigners and activists literally joined hands in prayer—or whatever was appropriate for those who do not have a particular faith.
The immediate response to the Brexit vote was a substantial and horrific increase in racial violence. If that does not tell us that the Brexit referendum has left a legacy that is far more toxic and poisonous than it needed to be, we are certainly not watching what is really happening in these islands. I commend the two Members who are no longer present for the initiative they took to try to heal the divisions. I do not think those divisions were caused by the referendum. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred to the referendum having laid bare the divisions. The malaise in the political process has been brought to a focus by the referendum. That was always going to happen.
The referendum was provoked by the desire of the then Prime Minister to fend off a challenge from the extreme right—not only the extreme right in the Conservative party, but those who were too extreme for his party—rather than facing down the xenophobes who wanted to demonise immigration and hold immigrants responsible for all the ills in our society. It is sad and shameful that neither of the two major political parties went into the last election saying, “You know what? We are not going to be bullied by the keyboard tappers of the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. We are going to tell it like it is. We are going to say that we stand for immigration being a positive contribution to our nations. If you want to vote for a Government who say something different, you can have that Government, but we will not be part of it.” Neither of the two major parties was prepared to do that, because getting elected was more important to them than saying what they fundamentally believed in.
I cannot believe how the Labour party produced election material saying, “Vote Labour for strong immigration controls”. I was brought up in the Labour party. The second time in my life that I voted was when I voted for a Labour MP. Interestingly enough, the first time that I voted was in the 1979 devolution referendum, and when we were cheated out of that one it nearly put me off voting for life. I cannot believe how the party I was once pleased to support can have any truck with those who want to demonise immigrants and immigration and blame them for the ills of society. When Labour made that concession—when it started to try to appease the far right, just like the Government of the day—that put us on a headlong course at the end of which Brexit was perhaps inevitable, and the horrific racist and racialistic legacy that has been left in too many of our communities will take a long, long time to put right. I hope that it is put right in time for my friends in other parts of the United Kingdom to be welcomed back into the European Union, but I can tell people something for nothing—Scotland is a member of the European Union now, and I intend for us to stay that way.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
It is always a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
For some, the referendum result represents a moment of golden opportunity; for others, it is a time of enormous economic risk. The petition we are debating today has been signed by an overwhelming number of people who believe that a second referendum should be put to the electorate. It has been signed both by people who voted to leave and by people who voted to remain. Curiously, the petition was created in advance of the referendum by somebody who supported the leave campaign and who is said to have believed that the result would be close but most likely in favour of remain. He was wrong.
With a majority of just over 1.25 million votes, 51.9% of votes cast called for us to leave, compared with 48.1% of votes to remain, on a turnout of 72% of the electorate. The referendum was certainly one of the most significant exercises in democracy that we have seen for a very long time, and it was for that reason that the Labour party tabled dozens of amendments to the European Union Referendum Bill to address the concerns that have now been raised in this petition, including provisions for electoral turnout and for a minimum threshold. Such amendments were rejected by Members of Parliament, alongside provisions that would have allowed 16 and 17-year-olds to have a say in what is probably the most important decision for their generation.
However, we must be clear that the British people decided in the referendum that our relationship with the EU, and its balance of rights and responsibilities, was wrong and needed to be addressed. Nevertheless, they did not, nor could they have been expected to, establish what the alternative might be. That is what the Government and Parliament must now determine.
What makes this process so complex is that we must seek to negotiate our exit from the EU and our future relationship with it while simultaneously forging our future bilateral trade partnerships with other countries—countries that would like to have clarity about where we stand with the EU before they conclude their own trade deals with us. Nothing could have made that clearer than the report released at the weekend by the Japanese Government, which expressed their proper concern about securing future access to Europe for Japanese companies that have invested billions of pounds in UK factories, jobs and distribution centres. That indicates the extraordinary risks that investment in the UK faces if we fail to maintain the free movement of goods and services into the world’s largest consumer market.
The Government must also address all the legislative gaps that will arise as a consequence of our secession from the European Union. The British people did not vote to see their workplaces made more dangerous or their maternity rights curtailed. The Government must ensure that where the basis of such rights and protections is lost because of legislation disappearing following a UK exit from the EU, new primary or secondary legislation is introduced to maintain the standards that British people have a right to expect.
EU nationals living in the UK and British nationals living elsewhere in the EU are desperate for clarity about where they stand. Do the Government plan to remove EU nationals from the UK? Should we prepare ourselves for the repatriation of some 1.1 million British citizens who are currently living elsewhere in the EU? Those are the non-duckable questions on which the Government have a duty to provide clarity; I hope that the Minister will provide such clarity in his summing-up today.
EU member states are our closest neighbours and strategic allies in matters of defence and co-operation, and the world is looking to us to set out how we will ensure that our departure from the EU does not cause instability throughout the region and— consequently—further afield.
The EU is currently the destination for 45% of all the goods and services that Britain exports and the source of 53% of all our imports. That is a stark measure of the level of trade integration that must now be renegotiated in the light of the referendum result. The Government must balance and recalibrate all the different elements that our membership of the EU has previously entailed. Essentially, however, there are three possible trading models: a free trade agreement, whereby member countries agree to abolish tariff barriers and quotas for goods and services between themselves; a customs union, in which member countries agree not only to reduce tariff barriers and quotas between themselves but to adopt common external tariffs towards other countries; and a single market, in which there is free movement of goods, services, capital and people, or labour. In a single market, there is also policy harmonisation over what constitutes such things as fair competition or reasonable health and safety regulations.
Although both sides of the referendum campaign lamentably failed to make it clear, in voting to leave the EU the British people voted to leave both the single market and the customs union. There is no smorgasbord of trade agreements laid out and waiting for the UK to choose from. The options that will be available to us will be determined just as much by what the other EU member states are prepared to give us as by what the UK wants.
Currently, there is no unified view among the other 27 EU members as to what they are willing to negotiate on. That situation is not going to be made easier by the forthcoming elections in France and Germany, both of which could have new leaders by this time next year. Timing is essential in all of this, and British MPs who say the Prime Minister should trigger article 50 now and without delay, without first setting out to Parliament the terms and basis upon which the Government seek to negotiate—indeed, without even indicating the red lines that the Prime Minister should seek to protect—simply have not grasped the logic of article 50. It is the logic of the game that young, testosterone-fuelled car drivers call “chicken”. The principle of that game is that while it is beneficial for each driver that the other driver gives way, their own optimal choice depends upon what their opponent is doing. If their opponent yields, the other driver should not yield, but if the opponent fails to yield, the other driver certainly should give way, to avoid a head-on crash.
What we know for certain is that no incumbent French or German leader can afford to be seen to be conciliatory towards the UK in negotiations before the elections in their own country. However, article 50 will not only trigger those negotiations but set a firm time limit—two years—within which they must be concluded. After that, in the absence of an agreed negotiated trade settlement, the UK would simply be ejected from the EU with no trade deal at all, unless every country in the EU separately agreed to an extension of negotiations, which could lead to the UK being held hostage to several unpalatable ransom demands.
Time is critical in negotiating trade deals; everything must come together, because the reality is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Before article 50 is invoked, the Government must set out how they intend to ensure that the promises made to those who voted to leave the EU are met. The Government must decide whether it is vital to keep passporting arrangements for our financial services sector, and if that is a red line, they must decide what price they are prepared to pay for it. If that price is the continuation of the free movement of people, many people who voted to leave the EU in the referendum might well feel that the Government are simply ignoring their concerns over immigration.
Similarly, if a deal were concluded that allowed us to keep single market access and have no free movement of people, our financial contribution towards the EU might have to continue at an extraordinarily high level. A negotiating red line that achieved market access without free movement but at huge budgetary cost might not be acceptable to those who thought they were voting to stop paying £350 million a week to the EU so that they could spend it on the NHS instead. It might also not appeal to those who voted to leave because they wanted to reclaim the UK’s sovereignty. In return for its access to the single market, Norway is obliged to enact three quarters of all EU laws into its own domestic legislation. A UK operating under such an arrangement would in effect be a vassal state, paying tribute to the EU and meekly enacting the laws passed down by Brussels, without the right to influence or shape them that member status confers.
None of those arguments are arguments for ignoring the expressed will of the British people, but they are very good reasons for saying that the Government must decide precisely what they want from any negotiation and what they are willing to pay or sacrifice to get it.
It is also vital that there is real democratic oversight. That means that Parliament must be extensively involved in the process and that once the Government are clear about what their own objective is, they should then present it to the country. Even though the petition is evidence that some wish to see a repeat of the referendum vote, the Government, as we know, have refused that. However, such a refusal should, at the very least, come through a parliamentary vote in the House of Commons. Then, and only then, does it make sense to trigger the UK’s departure from the EU by formally invoking article 50.
Article 50 is a fuse; once it is lit it cannot be extinguished. If it is prepared for well, it may lead to an extraordinary firework display, as Britain illuminates the world stage with a renewed sense of commercial purpose, but if it is prepared for hastily and badly, the fuse will result in an explosion whose economic consequences will set back our country for a generation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I congratulate the Petitions Committee on arranging the debate and the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on sponsoring it.
It is a healthy development that petitions receiving widespread support should be debated in Westminster Hall. This one has achieved more support than most—we should recognise that—and I recognise the great interest in the subject around the country. We have heard today from many speakers whose constituencies had a high turnout and it is striking, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) pointed out, that we have not heard from anyone who has backed the petition’s motion unequivocally and called for a second referendum on the same terms.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) got called short in his statements. I suspect that I will be called rather short in mine as well, so I have some sympathy for him there. However, many of the issues he raised were addressed in the debate we had on the devolved Administrations and we absolutely stand by the assurances we gave about engagement with the Administrations on those matters.
The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) is an experienced parliamentarian and he held out all sorts of interesting theoretical possibilities and challenges of the negotiations to come but, regarding the petition, it was clear that he did not support it. He talked about those MPs who were calling for article 50 to be triggered immediately and, of course, one of those was the leader of his party who, on 24 June, said that the article should be triggered at once. Admittedly, in July he corrected himself and recognised that it was a good idea to prepare for negotiations.
As we have heard, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history. Turnout was high, at 72%, with more than 33 million people having their say. More than a million more people voted leave than voted remain. The turnout was bigger than in any general election since 1992 and it was the second-highest popular vote of any form in our long and distinguished democratic history. No single party or Prime Minister has achieved more votes in our history than the vote to leave did in June. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) spoke about the passion with which the referendum was fought, and the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) spoke of people who were voting for the first time in years. I recognise both of those statements. This was a once-in-a-generation vote and the decision must be respected.
Like many people who signed the petition, though by no means all of them, I campaigned for a different outcome, but I also spoke out repeatedly in the House, both before and during the passage of the legislation for the referendum, about trusting the people on this matter. On 24 June I might have preferred a different result, but I did not falter in my belief that it was right to give the British people their say. Both the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) spoke passionately about people going through the stages of grief. One of those stages is denial, but the one thing we cannot do is deny the outcome of the vote. To deny the outcome or the validity of the referendum is to deny the clear mandate of the British people—in this House, as hon. Friends have pointed out, we are their servants and not the other way around.
There will be no second referendum, no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to re-join through the back door. Indeed, that would fly in the face of democracy and, I believe, entrench the sense of a disconnect between the country and this place that some argue contributed to the referendum result. We must now prepare for the process of exiting the EU, as we heard from the hon. Member for Brent North, and the Government are committed to ensuring the best possible outcome for the British people in the negotiations. I cannot cover all the detail of the preparations, but I refer hon. Members to the statement and responses given by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. Friend for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), earlier today. As he said, we should seek to deliver on what the country asked us to do through the referendum. We are encouraged by the national mood and by the fact that many who voted remain now want to make a success of the course Britain has chosen.
We will work hard to get the best possible deal for the whole of the UK. The Prime Minister and the Conservatives in Government will provide strong and proven leadership as the UK begins its negotiations to leave the EU and forge a new role for itself in the world. As the Secretary of State set out earlier during his detailed statement and more than two hours of questions, we will consult widely in the process, to make the most of the opportunities that our departure presents—getting out into the world and doing business right across the globe, while at home building a Britain that works for everyone.
Let me address precisely the premise of the petition. It called for the referendum to be rerun in the event that certain thresholds or super-majorities were not achieved. Some hon. Members have suggested and other motions have argued that it should be rerun on the basis of the quality of the debate. That is not the subject of the petition and hon. Members were right to observe that such a criticism could be made, subjectively, of almost any democratic contest in the history of the world.
The European Union Referendum Bill was introduced in May 2015, following years of long, hard debate. It delivered on a manifesto commitment of my party, which I have little doubt played an important part in our election success. It delivered on the promise given by the Government at the last election to give the British people their say on the UK’s membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017 and then to respect the outcome of their decision. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) pointed out, the previous Prime Minister made it clear before the referendum that the Government would respect the result.
As I am sure hon. Members will recall, the Bill was fully scrutinised and debated in both Houses, with this House supporting the Bill on Third Reading by an overwhelming margin of six to one before it received Royal Assent in December 2015. Therefore, I cannot accept the argument that we ought now to have a second referendum. Nor can I accept that a threshold ought to have been set when no such provisions were put to a vote during the many debates in this House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) pointed out—I am grateful to him for bringing his expertise and experience to the debate—those points were never brought up in the debate or put to a vote during that period. We, as parliamentarians, signed up to the Bill and we must now respect the outcome of the referendum.
It was the European Union Act 2015 itself that set out the terms for the EU referendum. It set the question that would appear on the ballot paper, the absence of a threshold and the franchise. It also provided a power to set the precise date of the referendum in regulations. Just as with the 1975 referendum on Europe and the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, the Act did not set a threshold nor require a super-majority for any outcome. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) talked about the 1979 referendums and about how they did have such requirements, but he also pointed out that the Scottish National party and others opposed that approach and its call for a super-majority. I recognise also his point about bringing people together in the aftermath of the referendum. He is right to say that we should bring people together rather than concentrate on rerunning the referendum. He is also right that we need certainty, and much of the statement that was set out earlier today and the announcement from the Chancellor during the summer are there to provide that certainty. A second or third referendum—a neverendum, as some hon. Members have suggested—would not provide the certainty that our country needs.
I conclude by saying that turnout was high, our instructions from the British people are clear and we are moving ahead. The machinery of government is now working hard to get the best deal from Brexit. While respecting the views of the millions who signed the petition, we must also respect the millions more who voted on 23 June and the clear mandate that was given, not merely after a few weeks of campaigning but after a debate that exercised this House and our nation for decades. I look forward to many more debates in this Chamber and in the House about the nature of our exit and the future relations between the United Kingdom and Europe, but I must be clear on behalf of the Government that we will respect the outcome of the referendum, treat it as an instruction from the British people and carry out the mandate they have given us.
Ian Blackford
I thank all those who signed the petition that got us to this position today and I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
I was struck by the comment the Minister made a couple of times about respecting the outcome of the referendum. The freedom to commit the United Kingdom Government to a debate was also mentioned. I do not think that many people would disagree with that—it is the fundamentals of our democracy—but I ask the Minister once again to recognise that different parts of the United Kingdom voted in different ways. We respect what has happened in England and Wales, but the Government have to listen, not just to the Members of the Scottish National party but to the Scottish Parliament, which voted so universally to empower the Scottish Government to protect Scotland’s position within the EU. The Government really must seek to do that.
Written Statements
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Electoral Law
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
The Government are today publishing their responses to a number of reports published on the administration of the UK parliamentary general election and other polls on 7 May 2015. The response to the Electoral Commission’s statutory reports on the elections incorporates responses to recommendations made by the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA) and the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB).
Recommendations made by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) have been addressed in a separate response.
We are grateful for the analysis and recommendations within the reports from all of these organisations. Their work helps the Government to monitor the effectiveness of existing electoral provisions, determine where improvements are needed and helps Government to set future direction for policy development. The Government will continue to work with electoral administrators and partners to remove burdens and ensure they are supported to carry out the effective running of elections.
We will also be considering any future change in light of the review of electoral fraud undertaken by the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles) and his report published last month. I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has undertaken over the past year in producing this detailed and thorough report. It will be an important contribution to our fight against all types of fraud in the UK. We will look closely at the recommendations.
Copies of the Government responses will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2016-09-05/HCWS132.
[HCWS132]
Finance Bill 2016
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I have today published a written submission outlining the Government’s analysis of how the English votes for English laws principle relates to all Government amendments tabled for Report stage of Finance Bill 2016.
The Department’s assessment is that the amendments do not change the territorial application of the Bill. The analysis reflects the position should all of the Government amendments be accepted. I have deposited a copy of the submission in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS130]
Chemical Weapon Precursors: Libya
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence, and I wish to make a joint statement about the significant contribution that Her Majesty’s Government have made to international efforts to ensure the safe destruction of precursor chemicals from Libya’s historic chemical weapons programme.
Libya’s chemical weapons stockpile was destroyed under international supervision and verification by 2014. However, a quantity of precursor chemicals remained in Libya. The international community was concerned about the risks that, in the current security situation, these chemicals might be acquired and misused by non-state actors. Earlier this year, the Libyan Government of National Accord asked for support from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and the international community to remove the remaining chemicals from Libya and to destroy them in a safe and timely manner in a third country. The UK has played a major role in co-ordinating international efforts to assist Libya and the OPCW to achieve this, including in the UN Security Council and with practical steps.
On 22 July, I voted on behalf of the UK in the UN Security Council for authority to be given for the chemicals to be removed from Libya for destruction in another country. Subsequently, the Danish Government asked the UK to provide a naval escort to support Denmark’s operation to ship the chemicals out of Libya.
The Secretary of State for Defence agreed to provide support, in the same way as the Royal Navy supported Denmark and Norway in the operation to remove chemical weapons from Syria in 2014. During late August, RFA Mounts Bay escorted the Danish task group from Libya through the Mediterranean.
In order to enable the safe transport and destruction of the Libyan chemicals, and to provide verification assistance to the OPCW, experts at the UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down were tasked to analyse samples of the chemicals. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has contributed some £500,000 to support both the analysis and destruction of the chemicals.
The UK’s contribution to this task is now almost complete. The chemicals are being taken to a specialist facility in a third country, where they will be safely destroyed.
In close co-operation with our international partners—notably Denmark, Germany and the US, who contributed significant funding to the overall destruction effort, as well as with the OPCW—the UK has taken practical and effective action to eliminate chemical weapon risks in Libya. This reinforces our collective commitment to the people and Government of Libya, and, ultimately, to all of us who want to live in a world free from chemical weapons.
[HCWS127]
Yemen
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
This Government continue to believe that the best way to achieve stability in Yemen is through a political solution. The UK’s priority is to support the UN Special Envoy to Yemen, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, in facilitating a credible peace process in Yemen. I deeply regret the failure of the parties to reach an agreement at the UN-led peace talks in Kuwait, and I continue to urge them to find the compromises that will end the current conflict.
There has been a sustained international effort in support of the UN throughout and the UK continues to play an active role. In July I hosted a meeting in London to discuss Yemen with the Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the US Secretary of State where we collectively reiterated our strong support for the role of the UN in mediating a lasting political solution to the crisis. We affirmed that a successful resolution should include arrangements that would require the withdrawal of armed groups from the capital and other areas, and a political agreement that would allow for the resumption of a peaceful, inclusive political transition. In August, Minister for the Middle East, Tobias Ellwood, represented me in Saudi Arabia for talks with the US Secretary of State, GCC Foreign Ministers and the UN Special Envoy. The discussions focused on finding a way to end the political deadlock in Yemen, humanitarian assistance and ways to support Yemen’s precarious economy.
We will continue to support the peace process through our diplomatic efforts. The UK will host a discussion on Yemen at the UN General Assembly later this month with key international partners. In parallel, we continue to press for military restraint on all sides and call for a renewed commitment to a cessation of hostilities.
We are aware of reports of alleged violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) by parties to the conflict and take these very seriously. We regularly raise the importance of compliance with IHL with the Saudi Arabian Government and other members of the Saudi-Arabian led military coalition. I raised the issue of IHL compliance with my Saudi counterpart, Foreign Minister Al Jubeir on 22 August. It is important that the Saudi Arabian-led coalition in the first instance conducts thorough and conclusive investigations into incidents where it is alleged that IHL has been violated. They have the best insight into their own military procedures and will be able to conduct the most thorough and conclusive investigations. It will also allow the coalition forces to understand what went wrong and apply the lessons learnt in the best possible way. This is the standard we set ourselves and our allies.
In this respect, Saudi Arabia announced more detail of how incidents of concern involving coalition forces are investigated on 31 January. The Saudi Arabian-led Coalition Joint Investigations Assessment Team publicly announced the outcome of eight investigations on 4 August.
The UK Government take their arms export responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. All export licence applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, taking account of all relevant factors at the time of the application. The key test for our continued arms exports to Saudi Arabia in relation to IHL is whether there is a clear risk that those weapons might be used in a commission of a serious violation of IHL. Having regard to all the information available to us, we assess that this test has not been met.
[HCWS128]
Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry: Appointment of Chair
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
I wish to update the House on the change in Chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) and today is my first opportunity to do so.
This inquiry was established in March 2015 to consider the extent to which state and non-state institutions have failed in their duty to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation, and to make recommendations to protect children from such abuse in future.
On 4 August 2016 the Chair Dame Lowell Goddard wrote to me to offer her resignation which I accepted. I am grateful for all of her work on the inquiry to date.
On 11 August I announced the appointment of Professor Alexis Jay as the new Chair of the Inquiry.
I am firmly of the view that the work of the inquiry needed to continue without delay. Victims and survivors deserve nothing less. After consultation, I decided that Professor Jay was the best person to provide stability and maintain momentum in the inquiry’s work.
Professor Jay’s experience, lifelong dedication to child protection and her outstanding leadership of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham demonstrate her suitability to lead the inquiry. I am delighted that she has agreed to do so.
[HCWS131]
Govia Thameslink
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
I am pleased to inform the House that from today Southern Railway have reinstated 119 train services into the weekday timetable. This means over nine out of 10 trains on the network will be running in line with the original weekday timetable, and over a third of the 341 trains removed on 11 July as part of the temporary timetable, will be restored this week. This will benefit passengers on inner London services, almost all London Bridge peak trains and restores service to Southern’s West London Line. The remaining trains will be reinstated to the timetable incrementally in the coming weeks. This is an issue of vital importance to the Government.
The Government have invested more than £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money in new, longer, and more spacious trains. These new trains are progressively being introduced on existing Thameslink rail services and other routes from May 2017. The new trains are fully equipped with the latest technology allowing drivers to safely operate the doors from the cab.
The introduction of these new trains will mean that conductors, who currently operate the train doors, are freed up to spend their time on the train helping passengers during their journeys. GTR has promised this new on board supervisor role will be open to all conductors and will not result in any job losses or pay reduction. These changes will clearly benefit passengers. Importantly the vast majority of trains that currently have an on-board conductor will keep that staff member in a new on-board passenger focused role.
The Secretary of State recently announced a targeted £20 million fund, to be spent by Network Rail under project board authority, and the appointment of one of Britain’s most experienced rail industry figures, Chris Gibb, to help get the service back running as it should. His post will be paid for by GTR and will involve heading a new project board, working with the train operator and Network Rail, to explore how to achieve a rapid improvement to services for the public. The board will oversee the £20 million fund and closer working between GTR and Network Rail to improve performance for Southern customers. A passenger representative will also be included on this review board to ensure commuters’ views are heard and improvements properly reflect passenger demands. The project board will present its plan in the autumn and actions will be implemented as soon as possible.
[HCWS129]
House of Lords
Deaths and Retirements of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the deaths of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, on 14 August, and of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on 20 August. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lords’ families and friends.
I should also like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 31 July, of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her much-valued service to the House.
Tributes: Baroness D'Souza and Lord Laming
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships will have perhaps noticed something very different in the Chamber today, with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, taking his place on the Woolsack for the first time. As we welcome him to his new role, we have an opportunity to pay tribute to his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for her service to the House. With the noble Lord, Lord McFall, now also in place as our first Senior Deputy Speaker, it would be an appropriate time as well for us to thank the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for his service as Chairman of Committees.
Although she was only our second Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, made the role her own. Building on the strong foundations of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and infusing the position with her own distinctive grace and poise, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, served as a strong and distinguished voice for your Lordships’ House. She expanded the Peers in Schools programme, through which 100 Peers have visited more than 1,000 schools since 2011. She developed a new regional outreach programme, helping to educate people up and down the country on the extremely important work this House does. She has been a true champion of retirement since its inception, helping to build consensus to secure the legislation that allowed Peers to retire, offering the River Room for receptions for those retiring, and highlighting the success of the scheme within and outside the House. In each respect, she leaves a hugely valuable legacy. We can be particularly grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness served as our representative, whether in her outreach work, her efforts to build links with parliaments across the world or in welcoming world leaders to address Parliament.
No matter the setting, she discharged her responsibilities with great distinction and was a real ambassador for your Lordships’ House. Nowhere was that clearer than when she led tributes to Nelson Mandela in the days following his death. While I was not in the House, I know that she spoke movingly about his impact in a speech that was all the more profound because of its roots in the noble Baroness’s own experiences fighting apartheid in South Africa. The noble Baroness discharged her duties on and off the Woolsack with warmth and good humour. She leaves office with the respect and gratitude of the whole House, and I hope she will continue to bring her considerable wisdom to our work in the coming years.
We also owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. As has been said many times, he stepped into the breach in extremely difficult circumstances. As a House, we were incredibly lucky that in our time of need we could call upon the perfect man for the job, an unflappable and collegiate man who is truly dedicated to public service. Each and every one of us—certainly in my case from personal experience—can attest to his warmth and courtesy, but as Chairman of Committees we saw his other qualities as well: his expert chairmanship; his rigorous attention to detail; and his ability to navigate a straightforward path through the most complex of areas, something that I myself will have to learn. No doubt I will call on his experience.
No matter the subject, the noble Lord was assiduous in building consensus, and always with the same statesmanlike manner that he displayed in his four distinguished years as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. What is more, he managed to combine the role of Chairman of Committees with the completion of his report In Care, Out of Trouble for the Prison Reform Trust. That he was able to discharge both responsibilities simultaneously showed off his seemingly endless reserves of energy, and I am delighted that we will continue to draw upon his expertise in his role as chairman of the Services Committee.
I conclude with congratulations and good wishes to the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord McFall, as they take on their new responsibilities. While their predecessors will be hard acts to follow, both noble Lords bring with them a wealth of experience of Parliament that will equip them well for their work in the coming years. I am looking forward to working with both of them, and I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I wish them the very best of luck and say that they carry with them the support and confidence of noble Lords on all sides of the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness has alluded to, today we pay tribute to two firsts in this House: the first Senior Deputy Speaker, my noble friend Lord McFall, and the first male Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. Today is an opportunity to thank both the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for their services to the House.
As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, did not expect or seek the office of Chairman of Committees. If this is not telling tales, before the Summer Recess last year he shared with me that as his office as Convenor of the Cross Benches was coming to an end, he was looking to having more time for other activities in your Lordships’ House; indeed, we have heard about his work on the review for the Prison Reform Trust, In Care, Out of Trouble. He was not to have that, though, and instead he willingly took on what has been a demanding role. At all times he has brought his customary courtesy, his impeccable manners and his thoughtfulness to his work.
The noble Lord and I have served on many committees together, and I have greatly welcomed the consideration and integrity that he has brought to at times complex issues and his willingness to seek consensus wherever possible. I have also enjoyed his style of chairing committees; I can think of no occasion where a committee member has not considered that they have had a full opportunity to contribute, and we have still finished on time.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, as only the second Peer to hold the position of Lord Speaker, has approached her term in office with enthusiasm, dedication and great personality. She has reached out to the wider public about the work of our House, which has taken her across the length and breadth of our country, debating and promoting the role and purpose of the second Chamber. I hope there is a record of all the meetings and events that she has addressed during her time in office. It should be recognised that, perhaps uniquely among parliamentarians, she was rewarded with a standing ovation at the Women’s Institute.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, and to give our thanks to her for the dignity with which she discharged her duties as Lord Speaker. It is, of course, a comparatively new post and, building on the foundations laid by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has developed and shaped the office during her time in that role.
The noble Baroness performed her ceremonial roles with considerable dignity. I always thought that she found exactly the right words whenever welcoming and thanking visiting dignitaries. The fact that both the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, talked about her outreach work, shows the stamp she put on the office. She ensured that the office of Lord Speaker did not focus inward on your Lordships’ Chamber but was outward facing. She developed an extensive outreach programme with the public. She spoke with many civil society and educational groups, attended countless public meetings across the country to describe the work of the House, and continued and expanded the innovative Peers in Schools programme, reaching out to schools far and wide.
She also sought to bring the outside world into Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reminded us of the visit of President Jimmy Carter. For me, it was a most memorable event. Her decision to invite him was significant because he was willing to accept. I do not know whether it was cunning or inadvertence on her part, but the initial invitation to us was just to a lecture by President Carter. It was only on the day that I realised that the subject was to be the eradication of Guinea worm disease. I must confess that I did not expect to be quite so fascinated by a parasitic infection. This lecture, given as part of the Lord Speaker’s global lecture series, demonstrated again the commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to strengthening links between Parliament and the wider community outside. This has been complemented by her work in strengthening the relationships of this House with many Parliaments overseas.
She had the challenge, if I may put it like that, of chairing the House Committee. I wonder how many former members of the committee share my view that her initiative in the last six months of her term in hosting the meetings in her rooms, accompanied by refreshment, boosted their productivity and seemed to shorten them.
Throughout her tenure as Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, fiercely sought to safeguard the reputation of this House at a time of increased scrutiny. At our regular meetings we often discussed our shared interest in upholding the good standing of this House and working through a number of difficult issues to find the best solutions for the House and all its Members. It is with much affection that, on behalf of these Benches, I wish her very well as she stands down from the role.
I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, for stepping into the role of Chairman of Committees at what was, we recall, a difficult time for your Lordships’ House. As they say, a volunteer is worth 10 pressed men or women. The noble Lord was always assiduous in his role, seeking to work in a most consensual way for the benefit of the House. His courtesy, respect for colleagues, attention to detail and steady guidance have been of considerable benefit, and he has always taken care to fully understand the issues. Again, I extend our warmest and heartfelt thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and wish him well in his chairmanship of the new Services Committee, to which he brings considerable experience.
I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, to the post of Senior Deputy Speaker. We go back many years to our time together in the House of Commons, and I know that that post is in secure hands. I also welcome our new Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reminded us, he is the first man to hold the post. The noble Lord’s election demonstrated that he has the overwhelming confidence of this House and I wish him very well indeed in his new role.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to add a few words from these Benches, as both of those to whom we are paying tribute this afternoon were previously Convenors of the Cross-Bench group and it is to this group that they have both now returned.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, came to the Cross Benches when she was made a Member of this House in July 2004. Her warm and generous personality made an immediate impact, and it came as no surprise when she was elected Convenor only three years later, in 2007, in succession to Lord Williamson of Horton. She held that position for nearly four years until her election as Lord Speaker in 2011. Then it was the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who was elected by the Cross Benchers to take her place as their Convenor. When he retired after serving his full term of four years, he must have thought—as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, suggested—that the time had come for him to take a back seat and lead a quieter life. But, of course, those who were wondering who was best suited to take over as Chairman of Committees at a critical time had other ideas. We were so very fortunate that the noble Lord was willing to be persuaded to fill the gap. No one was better suited to do this than he was.
I well remember the day when the noble Baroness contributed her own words as Convenor to the farewell to the Law Lords when the appellate jurisdiction of this House came to an end in July 2009. We the Law Lords were all sitting that day on the Cross Benches as members of her group for the last time before we were disqualified on our move to the Supreme Court. We appreciated her kind words very much. For me, four years of disqualification followed. So I was unavoidably absent for the rest of her convenorship, for the first two years of her time as Lord Speaker, and for the first two years of the noble Lord’s time as Convenor. However, when I came back in the summer of 2013 I was able to see them both in action.
It struck me at that time, and has been borne in on me even more now, that we expect an awful lot of our Lord Speaker. It seemed to me that her position on the Woolsack, although always dignified, was a rather lonely one. As others have said, her real contribution to the House has been in the work she has done outside the Chamber. For many of your Lordships much of what she did there was not obvious, but it has been my privilege during the past year to see quite a lot of her. I had regular meetings with her when she was Convenor, attended functions over which she presided and saw her work as chairman of the House Committee and as a member of the Procedure Committee and the Committee for Privileges. On each of these occasions she played an important and valuable role, always putting the needs of the House before all other considerations.
As for the functions, I remember the great ones, which included the addresses in the Royal Gallery by the President of China and the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, over which she and the Speaker presided, as well as the more intimate ones on her own in the Reading Room, particularly the one that both the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned, when Jimmy Carter came to talk to us about his work to eradicate the Guinea worm disease. My recollection of that event is that she took the risk at the end of the lecture of asking whether anyone had any questions on what he had been talking about. Anyone who has chaired a lecture knows how risky that can be. I still remember the look on her face when a wholly irrelevant and really rather naughty question was asked by a journalist: “Trump or Clinton, who will it be?”. That was six months ago, long before we knew who the final candidates would be, and I remember the look of sheer relief on her face when Jimmy Carter dealt with the cheeky question head on, generously and at length, instead of refusing to answer it—although, of course, skilled politician that he is, he did not really answer the question.
The noble Baroness did us proud on these occasions, charming our visitors with her grace and the warmth of her welcome. There were hard times for her, too, as the holder of any great public office must experience from time to time. Whatever she felt inside, she bore them with remarkable courage and fortitude. We have much to be grateful for. All of us on the Cross Benches wish the noble Baroness well on her retirement from the many responsibilities that she has borne so well. We look forward very much indeed to welcoming her back to these Benches, where she still has so much to contribute.
We welcome, too, the return to these Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. Let us be clear that it is certainly not because of what he has done that the role of Chairman of Committees has been reformed. He brought to that office a charming mixture of kind, self-deprecating humour and quiet efficiency. Committee meetings under his chairmanship, for which he always prepared very carefully, were always a pleasure and he struck exactly the right tone when presenting his committee’s reports to the House. We have much to be grateful for and I know that I have the support of all of those who are with me on the Cross Benches when I say how much we appreciate what he has done in that role. As has already been said, we are very fortunate indeed that he has agreed to serve from these Benches as the first chairman of the Services Committee as it settles into its new responsibilities. So, as I am sure he knows only too well, the work that he is doing for the House is not yet over.
On behalf of these Benches I also extend a very warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, as our new Lord Speaker and to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in his new role looking after the committee system, which has been so carefully reformed. We look forward very much indeed to working with them both in the future.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, on behalf of the Lords spiritual I join in the tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has been a great friend to the Lords spiritual, who normally arrive with even more trepidation and less familiarity with the processes of a House such as this than anyone else coming here. She has been assiduous in seeing new bishops and advising them, and then advising them later when they did not quite make it—something that I appreciated on more than one occasion. She always did it with the greatest tact and courtesy and I think that we would all say that she was an encourager of great aptitude.
I associate these Benches with the tributes to her for her work in publicising the work of the House in schools and further afield, and for her work in bringing forward the place of faith in public life. I remember well her hosting the visit of the Grand Imam of al-Azhar in her state rooms in 2015. It was a challenging and difficult meeting which, as always, she handled with extraordinary skill. She was also continually prodding us to make sure that the presence of women on these Benches became both a possibility and then, through the women bishops Bill, which she supported, a reality.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I will add a very brief last word. I would like to thank all those who have spoken for their good wishes to myself and to the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I must admit to a certain trepidation in breaking the 10-year female monopoly on the Woolsack. I also know perfectly well that when I make my first major mistake, the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition will shake their heads and say in perfect unity, “What do you expect if you hand it over to a man?”. For me, the truth is that everyone will remember the example of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the very high standards that she set in this House and outside, such as in her work with schools. But more than that, she spoke at numerous meetings up and down the country explaining the work of this House. As the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said, she spoke to the National Federation of Women’s Institutes to rapturous applause, which is not always the response that all politicians receive. When she spoke of the future, it was with sincerity and common sense. Dare I say that it is not exactly controversial to say that this House is somewhat on the crowded side? We look forward to her continuing campaigns now that she has returned to the Cross Benches.
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, has also made a tremendous contribution to this House as Chairman of Committees. I remember the days when he was director of social services in Hertfordshire back in the 1980s. Those were the golden years of social services in this country. Modesty almost prevents me recalling that for six of those 10 years I was in charge as Secretary of State for Social Security. As many will understand, I use the words “in charge” very loosely indeed. But what was certain was that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was a giant in that field. On his role in this House the best thing I can say is that I have never heard a critical word said about him. He is renowned for his patience, his hard work and, above all, his effectiveness in getting things done. The House is exceptionally fortunate that he will continue his work as the new chairman of the Services Committee. I ask noble Lords to note that any complaints about the food should be directed to him and not to me.
In brief, we sincerely thank two exceptional servants of this House.
Betting Shops: Serious Crime
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the incidence of serious crime affecting betting shops and their staff.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, all those who work in betting shops should be able to do so free from fear of crime. Where crimes are committed, they should be reported to the police so that they can be investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, given that betting shops account for 97% of all police calls to gambling establishments and 40% of serious crimes against businesses, and given that 7,000 machines are destroyed by gamblers in these premises each year and a growing proportion of shops have only one staff member on the premises, despite a rising tide of violent assaults on staff, when will the Government implement the delayed triennial review of the industry, and will it require a minimum of two employees to be present at all times when such premises are open?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the percentage, but of course betting shops make up a huge percentage of gambling establishments. He is absolutely right to make the point about tackling crime at betting shops and the police should be, and are, taking it seriously. As he will know, there are requirements around licensing to protect vulnerable people, and some of the partnership working that is going on—for example, the Safe Bet Alliance, which was set up in London in 2010—has proved very successful.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the criminal damage suffered by some 7,000 fixed-odds betting terminals every year. Do the Government acknowledge that this is a consequence of the addictive nature of these high-stakes machines, and when do they plan to lower the stakes for these machines?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord makes a very good point. Of course, gamblers will be attracted to all types of gambling opportunities, whether through fixed-odds betting terminals or online, which nowadays is so easy. We will consider the report from the DCMS very carefully. To address the noble Lord’s question, last year we brought in new requirements that will improve player protection by stopping unsupervised playing with stakes over £50. Some social responsibility has also been brought into the industry by allowing customers to make active choices with regard to both the money they put in and the time they spend on the machines.
Baroness Jowell (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not accept that, by allowing the proliferation of crime, one of the founding principles of the Gambling Act, which gave this country the most regulated gambling industry in the world, is being undermined? Further, does she not accept that it is time for the Gambling Commission to become more interventionist in controlling the risks from fixed-odds betting machines and that it is time to give local authorities the partnership power to regulate planning consent to limit the number of betting shops?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness makes some good points. New planning laws introduced in 2015 make it harder to open betting shops on the high street and the Government will take further action if necessary. She talks about the Gambling Commission. As I said to the noble Lord, the commission introduced some social responsibility requirements in terms of customers making active choices regarding time spent on machines and money limits.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I know from previous Written Questions to the Home Office that the Home Office does not hold data on the number of police-recorded crimes in licensed premises, such as betting shops, or indeed in any other location. Will the Minister consider reviewing this policy?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The most recent data that we have are from the Commercial Victimisation Survey, which includes the whole industry of casinos, bookmakers and arcades. Therefore, we have information and we take it very seriously.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of research that shows a link between crime and anti-social behaviour and those areas where there are large clusters of betting shops. She has already acknowledged that some changes in planning legislation have made it slightly harder to open a betting shop. Does she not agree that the time has now come to go even further and make betting shops a single-use category under planning legislation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not agree with the noble Lord on that point but I agree that councils, the police and licensing committees all need to take into consideration some of the harms that gambling can cause. However, some of the most dangerous gambling now takes place online, where no one can see it.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I believe my noble friend Lord Beecham asked when the Government would implement the delayed triennial review and whether it would require a minimum of two employees to be present at all times when betting shops are open. I did not hear a response to that question. Could the Minister reply to the specific question asked by my noble friend Lord Beecham?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right: I did not entirely answer the question. However, I answered one of the questions the noble Lord asked. We will, of course, consider the triennial review and take action if necessary. One of the measures that gambling establishments and betting shops are taking is to have more staff. Licensing regulations require that vulnerable people, including staff, are protected.
Economy: Productivity
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the United Kingdom’s productivity.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord O'Neill of Gatley) (Con)
My Lords, UK productivity performance remains a fundamental challenge. The Government set out their approach to tackling the issue in their productivity plan, Fixing the Foundations. The Government have since introduced further measures that will help productivity growth—for example, the apprenticeship levy, proceeding with investments in UK infrastructure such as High Speed 2 and the biggest investment in road and rail for a generation.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
My Lords, given the Prime Minister’s welcome focus on our poor and parlous situation in regard to productivity in this country—we stand some 18 percentage points below the average of our rivals in the G7—what is the purpose of, and how will competitiveness and productivity be generated by, our leaving the single market within the context of Brexit?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, the decision to leave the EU was the result of a democratic question put to the people of this country—it was the result of that choice. What that means for the future of UK productivity remains to be determined. As I am sure many Members of the House are aware, in the past couple of weeks in particular there has been a somewhat surprising upbeat tone to some of our economic data. Among other things, this raises the possibility that productivity has not slipped any further or as much as many people may have thought.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, one of the key drivers of productivity is the need for businesses to feel confident in the long-term prospects for their business and the economy. I am sure the whole House will welcome the news from the purchasing managers index today that the service sector is bouncing back from the disastrous post-Brexit figures. However, as the noble Lord has already mentioned, many businesses remain nervous about what Brexit will mean for them in the longer term. Does the Minister agree that, if companies are to invest in the capital infrastructure, training and recruitment needed to tackle the productivity challenge, they need to see a real strategy for Brexit beyond the Prime Minister’s platitude that “Brexit means Brexit”?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, private business needs to feel confident about many things in order to undertake further investment decisions, of which the latter part of what the noble Baroness asked may be one. However, a number of other factors are important. In that regard, it is interesting that the latest evidence on investment is not only slightly more encouraging than was the case last year but perhaps ahead of some expectations.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that one of the reasons for low productivity in the United Kingdom is the seemingly unlimited supply of immigrant labour which is keeping down wage rates? Does he agree that if we manage to limit immigration as a result of Brexit, our productivity might go up?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I am not sure that I would agree with my noble friend’s assertion. However, I agree with the inference that many things lie behind our apparently low and disappointing productivity performance, which I spend far too many hours trying to wade into. If you look at this in the kind of detail that I do, it is interesting to note that, if you take away the negative contributions made in those areas such as finance about which people are usually the most critical, our productivity performance since the recession of nine years ago is not any worse than that of any other member of the G7. There are many reasons behind our apparent—and probably realistic—disappointing productivity performance.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have cut business taxes when at the same time many companies are now cash rich. However, they are failing to invest in plant or in their staff. Why is that?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised an important and interesting question. It is something that I spend quite a lot of time trying to explore. It is a feature throughout the western world that levels of cash held by corporations, including in economies that might be perceived as being more successful than ours, are very high, but despite low interest rates and favourable tax rates, the reported amount of investment being undertaken by corporations in many parts of the developed world remains disappointing. We need to understand this further and when we know why, we must try to do more about it.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that devaluation is the enemy of productivity because, for a time at least, it keeps in being inefficient firms whose factors of production would be better deployed elsewhere? Is it not also the case that one of the great drivers of productivity is competition, and therefore if we are serious about improving productivity in this country it would be crazy to leave the single market, whether or not we have to leave the European Union?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, most of the independent measures of competitiveness would actually rank the UK among the highest in the world. On the first part of the noble Lord’s question, there has not been any official devaluation of our currency. It was a consequence of what happened, and in the context of what I said earlier, it is interesting to note that in recent days the pound has recovered somewhat.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is an honest man and he will recognise that we have had a chronic position with regards to balance of payments throughout the whole time that we have had a Conservative-led Government since 2010. He will also know that in this country the average Briton still takes five days to produce what the average Frenchman can produce in four days. In a period of increasing competition—as we are bound to find as we leave the European Community—how can we possibly make progress or expect to meet this competition with such appallingly low levels of productivity?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
My Lords, I think I heard two questions from the noble Lord. I cannot resist saying that I seem to remember that the era of chronic balance of payments problems as described goes back to the 1960s, which precedes not only Conservative Governments; those of different colours were in town over that time. On the latter question, an important part of understanding the productivity issue in greater detail is that there is some evidence, which I have mentioned in the House before, that you have to be careful about bemoaning everything about our apparently low productivity performance because some of it is almost definitely the flip side of a very strong rate of employment. That is particularly the case in the context of making direct comparisons with France. It is an important point.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister agree that our complex warship-building capacity in this country cannot increase productivity unless it has a steady drum beat of orders? I have to say that, afloat on the Solent during the summer, I hardly saw a grey-funnel ship. How will we increase productivity unless we get a steady drum beat of orders so we can make investment?
Lord O'Neill of Gatley
Of all the aspects of the productivity challenge I have focused on, this is not one I have given that much attention to. I hope it is not necessary for us to go to war to do something about boosting our productivity performance.
Airports: London
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will announce their decision about extra runways for London’s airports.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to delivering the important infrastructure projects the country needs, including delivering runway capacity to the timetable set out by the Airports Commission. As noble Lords will appreciate, it is vital we get this decision right. The Government commissioned extra work looking at the three options shortlisted by the commission. Ministers will consider this alongside the comprehensive evidence published by the commission before reaching a final view on the preferred scheme.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend on his well-deserved promotion to Minister of Aviation, which is a job I once held. Is not this whole issue getting a bit out of date? Should we consider asking not whether Heathrow or Gatwick will have another runway, but whether Gatwick and Heathrow will have extra runways?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks. He served in a very distinguished capacity as Aviation Minister, but he is also quite right to mention aviation capacity in the south-east. As I have said previously from this Dispatch Box, the Davies commission carried out quite comprehensive work in this regard. Three options were presented to the Government, which remain on the table.
Lord Soley (Lab)
In this post-Brexit world, will the Minister use his enhanced position, which is well deserved—he has been a good supporter of the expansion issue—to make sure his Cabinet colleagues, and the Prime Minister, who is chairing the relevant committee, understand that it is critical that Heathrow can deliver the services the rest of the world will expect if we are to be part of that market? To follow the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, they need to recognise that we need a better way to deal with airport expansion in this country. Expansion of airports is critical to both regional and national economies.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is right in that over the summer there have been a few changes in the Government and in the position of the United Kingdom. A new Government, Prime Minister and Secretary of State are in place, but I assure the noble Lord—indeed, all noble Lords—that the Government are giving this decision a high priority. It is paramount in our mind. The other element to bear in mind is that it will be in line with the Davies commission to ensure that we have this extra capacity operational by 2030.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this decision concentrates on the south-east. It will have an adverse impact on airports elsewhere, not least because if we have more flights in the south-east we will have to have fewer in the rest of the UK to reach our carbon reduction targets. Will the Minister seek to persuade the new Prime Minister that she needs to make this decision with the interests of every part of the UK in mind?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure the noble Baroness that, knowing the new Prime Minister well, the right honourable lady will make all decisions, whether on airport expansion or on the economy and our position on the international stage, focusing on what is of benefit to the United Kingdom as a whole. The noble Baroness raises an important issue about regional airport capacity and regional connectivity. I assure her and the whole House again that the decision taken on expansion of south-east capacity will reflect the importance of the aviation industry and airport connectivity, in particular to our international positioning.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Are there any issues relating to additional runway capacity in the south-east and the Davies commission report that are now being considered by Theresa May’s Government that were not being considered, prior to his leaving office, by David Cameron’s Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The Government’s position remains consistent. The Prime Minister may have changed but the Government’s position remains that the Davies commission was commissioned to look specifically at airport capacity in the south-east. As I said earlier, there are three options on the table and they are all being considered.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Spicer asked when the Government’s decision will be announced. I wonder whether my noble friend could answer that Question.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The best answer I can give is that the Government will be looking to make that decision very shortly.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, does that not imply that the consistency of the Government’s position, which the Minister has just referred to, is that this issue is to be kept in the long grass for as long as possible?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure the noble Lord that there is no long grass. To continue with that metaphor, I have the lawnmower at the ready if there was any such long grass. I do not think it is inconsistent at all. The Government have given priority to this decision. The previous Government and the previous Prime Minister commissioned the Davies commission to look at this important issue. I have already reiterated the point that the Government are giving high priority to this issue. The decision will be made shortly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
Does the decision of the Government to widen the M4 to an eight-lane motorway indicate that the decision has already been made for a new runway at Heathrow, in spite of the enormous opposition to such a project?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure the noble Lord that no decision has yet been made.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That is a very open-ended question but I would be very much inclined to say to my noble friend: sooner.
Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, on his unremitting campaign for the best interests of British aviation. Is it not clear that the longer a decision on this vital issue is delayed, the worse it will be for British aviation? In my view, a decision should have been made long ago, and the Government are playing for time. The more we encounter delay, the more British aviation will suffer while its rivals manage to march forward unremittingly.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Lord about the way in which my noble friend Lord Spicer has ensured that this issue is kept at the forefront. I assure all noble Lords that the importance of the aviation sector is a high priority for this Government. I further assure the noble Lord that the decision that will be taken will be in the best interests of the aviation sector, as well as of the country as a whole.
Schools: Drama
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage the teaching and study of drama in schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, we want all pupils to participate in and gain the knowledge, skills and understanding associated with the artistic practice of drama. All maintained schools are required to teach drama as part of the national curriculum in English. Teachers are expected to introduce pupils to works from a range of genres, historical periods and authors. Pupils are taught about role play, improvisation and performance, as well as studying the art of playwriting.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the latest figures—among them fairly catastrophic figures for arts subjects—which show a drop in England of 16% in the take-up of GCSEs in drama over the past six years? Does the Minister share the widely expressed concern that with drama being offered less and less in state schools, the acting profession will become accessible to only the well-off and privately educated? If so, what action are the Government going to take?
Lord Nash
What the noble Earl says about acting as a career could equally be said about many other careers, sadly, and that is why we have invested so much in school reform over the past five years. Specifically, we have provided means-tested support to ensure that talented 18 to 23 year-olds from all backgrounds receive the training they need to succeed in acting careers, and we have funded the Royal Shakespeare Company to provide all state schools with a free copy of its toolkit for teachers and to support young people performing Shakespeare in theatres.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we all know how important the creative industries are to the economy of this country so it seems strange that we are allowing there to be a decline in the creative arts subjects in our schools. The Minister can quote little odd examples but the facts show that for all the creative arts subjects, there has been a decline in the number of hours taught and the number of teachers teaching those subjects. Does he think the new Secretary of State for Education might look again at the cataclysmic effects that the EBacc will have on creative subjects?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the creative industries in this country. That is one of the reasons why we have reformed computing and D&T GCSEs and A-levels to make them more relevant and ensure that our pupils have the necessary skills to succeed in these great industries. However, I remind him of the situation we inherited in 2010, where only one in five pupils in state schools was studying a basic academic curriculum that would be regarded as absolutely common fare in any independent school and in most successful jurisdictions. That is why we introduced the EBacc, because that curriculum is so important, particularly to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who do not get that cultural education at home. We have doubled the number of pupils taking EBacc and we intend to double it again, and more. We hope that by stimulating the intellectual juices of our pupils to study better academic and creative subjects, they will in time want to engage in the arts more widely.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister has mentioned the Royal Shakespeare Company, I should declare an interest as a governor and board member of that company. He will probably also be aware that his right honourable friend David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, recently hosted the Royal Shakespeare Company at No. 10 Downing Street in connection with its Associated Schools programme. Therefore, I assume that there is some level of support from within the Government for what the Royal Shakespeare Company and other arts organisations are doing to promote education in the arts. However, the Minister will also know that all those organisations are extremely anxious about the decline in take-up of arts subjects, mostly as a result of concentration on the EBacc. He may also want to know that the Royal Shakespeare Company, which is extremely assiduous and invests heavily in education, is particularly anxious about the, frankly, rather lukewarm support that is coming from government about arts subjects in schools. Can he reassure the House, and beyond the House the education sector, that that support will get a little warmer as time goes on?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree that the Royal Shakespeare Company has a huge role to play, and has played a big role in our education system; and I am sure that the noble Baroness is pleased that pupils will now study a minimum of three Shakespeare plays during their secondary school career. In addition to the toolkit, earlier this year we provided funding to help the Royal Shakespeare Company stream “The Merchant of Venice” into all schools. I can assure the noble Baroness that we regard this as an extremely important part of the curriculum.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that although the noble Earl’s sentiment is correct—we must open up professions —the quickest way of opening up professions to people of all backgrounds, especially disadvantaged backgrounds, is to give them a very rigorous academic education that can act alongside arts subjects and other subjects, so enabling them to get into apprenticeships and higher education and opening the doors to those kinds of professions?
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with my noble friend: studies have shown that this has had the effect of doing that with pupils. As I say, that is why we are so heavily focused on the EBacc. It is appalling that, until a few years ago, so few of our pupils were accessing such a curriculum.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
It is through programmes operated by theatres such as the Young Vic that schoolchildren get the opportunity to experience theatre production, which is so important in learning about and understanding drama, yet the National Association for the Teaching of Drama has reported that, increasingly, schools are removing theatre trips from their timetables because of the difficulty in balancing their budgets. At the same time, the number of drama teachers is decreasing: it went down by nearly 20% between 2011 and 2014. As Sir Peter Bazalgette, the chair of Arts Council England, said, the state sector,
“doesn’t generate quite the creative and acting talent that it could were people in that sector given the same quality of education in performing they get in private schools”.
Sir Peter also argued that it should not be possible for an Ofsted rating of outstanding to be granted to any school unless it offers a vigorous and wide-ranging arts education. Does the Minister agree with that?
Lord Nash
We are working with exam boards and Ofqual to make sure that all students see live drama in the theatre, as part of their drama qualifications, and we expect this to be in place from September next year. It is of course not just about GCSEs; many students choose to pursue drama through their school drama societies and in school plays. I cannot think of a school that I have visited which does not have an active drama society and puts on school plays. Ofsted inspects against how well the school supports the formal curriculum with extra-curricular activities for pupils to extend their knowledge and understanding, and to improve their skills in a range of artistic, creative and sporting activities.
Investigatory Powers Bill
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
“Notification by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner
(1) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner is to notify the subject or subjects of the use of the investigatory functions mentioned in section 205(1) to (3), including—(a) the interception or examination of communications,(b) the retention, accessing or examination of communications data or secondary data,(c) equipment interference,(d) access or examination of data retrieved from a bulk personal dataset,(e) covert human intelligence sources,(f) entry or interference with property.(2) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must only notify subjects of investigatory powers under subsection (1) upon completion of the relevant conduct or the cancellation of the authorisation or warrant.(3) The notification under subsection (1) must be sent by writing within 30 days of the completion of the relevant conduct or cancellation of the authorisation or warrant. (4) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must issue the notification under subsection (1) in writing, including details of—(a) the conduct that has taken place,(b) the provisions under which the conduct has taken place, and(c) any known errors that took place within the course of the conduct.?(5) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner may postpone the notification under subsection (1) beyond the time limit under subsection (3) if the Commissioner assesses that notification may defeat the purposes of an ongoing serious crime or national security operation or investigation.(6) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must consult the person to whom the warrant is addressed in order to fulfil an assessment under subsection (5).”
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 191 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It would insert a new clause after Clause 206 requiring the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to notify those who have been subject to the powers contained within the Bill, as set out in Clause 205(1) to 205(3), once the operation against them is complete or the warrant is cancelled. There are various conditions for notification and the ability to postpone notification in certain circumstances following discussion with the person to whom the warrant is addressed.
Citizens are entitled to the protection of the law but, as the Bill is drafted, it is impossible to challenge the Government and the use of state instruments of interference in people’s private lives if they have no idea that they have been the subject of surveillance. To quote the briefing provided by Liberty, if a person’s Article 8 rights—to a private and family life—and other Human Rights Act rights have been engaged and potentially violated,
“in order to have access to an effective remedy, as required under human rights law, the person must first be made aware of a possible breach”.
Cases in 1978 and 2006 before the European Court of Human Rights upheld this view. In 2007, the court went further and said that,
“as soon as notification can be made without jeopardising the purpose of the surveillance after its termination, information should be provided to the persons concerned”.
Post-event notification is already in place in some form in Germany, Belgium and the state of California in the United States of America.
There must of course be safeguards and these are built into the amendment, allowing the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to postpone notification if he assesses that it might defeat the purposes of an ongoing serious crime investigation or national security operation, after consultation with the body that issued the warrant. The right honourable Theresa May, the Prime Minister, repeatedly stated when she was Home Secretary that this is world-leading legislation. If that is the case, let us be radical and implement this amendment. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, Amendment 191 would insert a new clause that would see subjects of the lawful and proper use of investigatory powers notified of that fact.
There are a number of problems with that proposition, both in principle and from a practical perspective. First, let me be clear that I agree with the principle that where a serious error has occurred in the use of the investigatory powers, the commissioner should be able to inform a person affected. Clause 198(1) makes this absolutely clear.
However, I do not agree with the principle that, as a matter of course, anyone subject to the lawful use of an investigatory power must be notified, unless it would damage an ongoing serious crime or national security investigation. A principle of that kind would mean, for example, that we would need to notify suspected criminals and terrorists that they have been under investigation just because a specific ongoing investigation had stalled or, indeed, had concluded with evidence of wrongdoing but with insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution.
As noble Lords will know, suspected criminals and terrorists will often appear on the radar of the police and the security services at different times in the context of different investigations. It would clearly not be appropriate to inform them that investigatory powers had been used against them in a particular case as this could prompt them to change how they behave or communicate, which could hamper a future investigation. This is particularly important in relation to national security because this amendment would require the commissioner to make the subject of interest aware of,
“the conduct that has taken place”.
That would not just run contrary to the long-standing policy of successive Governments of neither confirming nor denying any specific activity by the security and intelligence agencies, but would essentially require the techniques the agencies use in specific cases to be made public. That would clearly assist terrorists in their operations, allowing them to stay one step ahead of the agencies.
Beyond the principled objections to this amendment, there would be numerous practical problems. It would not be practical, for example, for the commissioner to make everyone whose data were subject to a data retention notice aware of that fact. For example, he would have to require the relevant telecommunications operator to provide him with a list of all relevant customers, and it would have to inform him every time a new customer joined its service. It would not be difficult for criminals to use that process to identify services that they could use to avoid detection.
Equally, I suggest to the noble Lord that it would put unreasonable burdens on all public authorities covered by this Bill to require them constantly to need to make a case to the commissioner as to whether it would hamper national security or serious crime investigations if subjects were told that investigatory powers had been used against them. It would surely be better for the police to spend time and money on investigating criminals, rather than on determining whether individuals should be informed about perfectly lawful investigative activity.
Furthermore, in the context of bulk warrants under parts 6 and 7, the public authority or commissioner would need to examine all the data collected under the warrant to identify the individuals whose data have been collected. That would not only be impractical, but data would be looked at that otherwise there would have been no need to examine. This new clause would therefore actually lead to greater intrusions into privacy than would otherwise be necessary, which I am sure cannot be the intention.
I submit to the noble Lord that the proposed amendment is at best unnecessary and at worst threatens fatally to undermine the work of law enforcement and the security and intelligence agencies.
Let us be clear what the effect would be. It is not innocent, ordinary, law-abiding people who would be notified, because the agencies do not seek or obtain warrants against such people; it is suspected criminals and terrorist suspects. They would then change their behaviour, and we would have less chance of bringing them to justice. That point lies at the nub of the argument I have put to the noble Lord. I am sure that cannot be his intention, so I hope he will consider it the right thing to do to reflect on this point between now and Report, and withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, before my noble friend responds, which I think he is about to do, I will take the opportunity to say that the motivation behind my noble friend’s amendment is a very sound one. The fact that you do not know whether you are being wrongly investigated is contributing to a sense of unease about the intelligence provisions in this legislation. This is a problem we have to try to address.
The Minister has put forward some genuine, practical considerations which would make it difficult to implement a clause such as my noble friend’s. This is not a new problem: throughout the history of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, we have had the problem that the only answer that could be given is that no unlawful activity has been carried out, which does not tell you whether any activity has been carried out. If it was carried out, it was lawful, but maybe it was not carried out at all. It was an infuriating answer for people who suspected that they might have been subject to investigatory powers but had no way of knowing or being certain.
It is a problem which even existing procedures sidestep. The Minister referred to ways in which notification may take place in cases where a mistake has been made. Included in the category of people to whom that might apply would be the very people he said he did not want to assist by bringing to their attention that on this occasion, they had been unsuccessfully investigated but there might well be reason to investigate them in the future. The Minister was wrong to say that the people to whom we would be imparting this information were criminals or people threatening the security of the state. If an investigation has not been successful in identifying who is involved in a radicalisation ring or in planning a kidnapping, that may well be because some of those people genuinely were not involved in any way, and some other factor—a mistaken number, for example—had drawn them into the net of the inquiry. Maybe they were known to others involved but genuinely played no part in it, and that emerges from the intelligence.
We should recognise, in considering this suggestion, that strong fears arise from uncertainty and from an inability to establish whether you have been the subject of investigation or not, when there is no reason for you to have been so subject. That of course places a very heavy burden on the commissioners, because rather like special advocates, they have to represent the concerns of people with whom they cannot check—they cannot ask, “How do you feel about this?”. At the very least, it is a salutary reminder of the importance of the processes which this Bill will introduce and of the involvement of judicial commissioners, and we may need to revisit this issue in the future.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I absolutely understand the motivation behind the amendment, but I wonder whether the Minister might consider another objection. He referred to the risk of the person who was notified changing his practices in the knowledge that what he was doing was being observed by one or other of these various methods. The problem may be not the individual himself but the people with whom he is in contact. One does not know how wide the web is of the group to which he belongs, and it would be so easy for that message to be passed around to people to warn them that there is a particular mechanism in play which is tapping into what he does and that those who operate in the same way as he does will be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. I rather suggest that the problem is more wide-ranging than the Minister was telling us in his very careful reply to the amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, with great respect to my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lord Beith, I am with the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on this one. What my noble friends may have overlooked is the strength, distinction and effectiveness of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. If there was any evidence to indicate that the commissioner, whether the present one or a future one, was likely to behave in a malign way and not reveal where improper action had taken place, then my noble friends’ concerns might have some validity. As has been said, though, the Bill is a world leader, not least in the protections that it contains. I commend to the House the provisions that have been placed in the Bill without these unnecessary amendments.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I shall briefly respond to the points that have been made. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for amplifying the case that his noble friend made in introducing the amendment. In the end, we come back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just articulated. We are talking here about the proper, legitimate use of the powers that the Bill contains, with robust oversight and mechanisms for redress built in, and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is indeed an important safeguard in that context.
We are absolutely on board with the proposition that where an innocent person has been completely wrongly subject to the use of the investigatory powers—that is, where a serious error has occurred—there is no argument that that person should be informed. However, I submit that one cannot talk in the abstract about someone who has been “wrongly investigated”, which I think was the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. You can be wrongly investigated if you are completely innocent, but you can also be wrongly investigated if there is perhaps not enough to pin on you as the culprit in a particular case but you might nevertheless, subject to further evidence, be implicated in a serious crime or a threat to national security. So we have to be clear about our terms in this context.
I come back to the fact that there are issues of principle and practice here that make this particular amendment unworkable. I also take on board the very good point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that it is not just an individual who could react to the news that they had been investigated in a way that would frustrate law enforcement agencies or intelligence services but a whole group of people. That in turn could affect national security, or indeed the conduct of criminals, much more widely.
Lord Paddick
I am grateful to the Minister and to other noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. I was heartened when the Minister started to say that he could see in principle what the amendment was driving at and therefore the merit of it to that extent. He then gave a lot of practical reasons why it would not work in practice. I have to say that I found a lot of those unconvincing, particularly when you look at the wording of the amendment and the fact that:
“The Investigatory Powers Commissioner may postpone the notification … if the Commissioner assesses that notification may defeat the purposes of an ongoing serious crime or national security operation or investigation”—
which would cover the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Presumably the police and security services would know that this individual was part of a wider network and therefore would not inform that individual—at least, not at that stage.
So I think we are on to something here in principle, although I accept the practical difficulties that the Minister pointed out. We need to go back and rethink the amendment to address the practical problems that he highlighted and see whether we can allay his fears at Report. But, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 191B, 191BA, 191C, 191D, 191E, 191F, 191FA, 191G, 191GA, 191GB, 191H and 191J—on this occasion, I do not think that the importance is in inverse proportion to the number of amendments, as one often finds.
Taken together, these amendments would give the Investigatory Powers Commissioner greater scope to report errors—this is not unrelated to the previous amendment—and create a more level approach by removing many of the strict limitations which would prevent many errors being reported. The objective is to ensure that the protections in place for the agencies do not restrict those for the general public in learning whether an error involving them has been made. I must thank the organisation Big Brother Watch for drawing several points to our attention.
The first two amendments simply seek to bring more objectivity to the exercise.
Amendments 191C and 191D deal with when an error should be reported. According to the Bill, that should happen when it is “a serious error” and,
“it is in the public interest for the person to be informed”.
I suggest that the default should be that a person who has been the subject of an error should be informed unless there is a good reason for him not to be. The clause does not say that the person should be informed unless it is in the public interest for the person not to be informed. In the debate on the previous amendment, the Minister talked about prejudicing an ongoing investigation. Without consulting my noble friend Lord Paddick, I would regard that as being something that would be in the public interest to create a block on information. We have the phrase “serious error”. To me, “serious” risks an ever-higher threshold being set on reporting an error. One of my amendments suggests the term “not trivial” as an alternative that would provide a proportionate response to the issue.
Amendment 191E would delete Clause 207(3). Subsection (3) provides that,
“the fact that there has been a breach of a person’s Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998) is not by itself sufficient for an error to be a serious error”.
The requirements of the Human Rights Act are a particular consideration under Clause 2, which is the privacy clause. I would regard any breach of the convention rights as something about which to be very careful. Article 8, the right to private and family life, is not absolute; there may be interference with it in accordance with the law where it is necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security and given other matters set out in the article. I have two questions, and it looks from the way he is writing notes as though they should be addressed to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. First, how does subsection (3) affect Clause 2, the privacy clause? Can the Committee be assured that that clause is in no way weakened by Clause 207(3)? Secondly, is Clause 207(3) included in order to meet the wording of Article 8, which is that it does not apply if the breach is “in accordance with law”? Is this clause bringing that situation within the scope of being in accordance with law?
Amendment 191F requires the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to consider matters which are the subject of Clause 2, the privacy clause. This part of the Bill is not referred to in Clause 2. The safeguards to protect privacy are referred to in Clause 205(5) but that is in connection with a review under Clause 205. How does the privacy safeguard apply to this clause?
Amendments 191G and 191GA—probably best read the other way round by noble Lords who are managing to follow this, which is not a stream of consciousness but a stream of amendments—would provide that the details which the commissioner considers necessary for the exercise of the right to apply to the tribunal and “other details” should be made public and be proportionate. If an error is made, why should information about it be limited to details necessary for an application to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal? There may be other rights in play, and should the person not be informed? People do not always want to exercise a right, but nevertheless if an error has been made they should have the information about it. The second of this pair of amendments, which refers to proportionality, may not be quite right in its drafting, but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will understand that I am seeking to find the balance between individual rights and national security and so on.
I turn to Amendment 191GB. Clause 207(9) provides that an error which prompts action under the clause is an error by a “public authority”. For this purpose, do public authorities include telecommunications officers? They should do, which is why the amendment adds them if they are not already there, because those operators carry out a very significant amount of surveillance work on behalf of public authorities.
On Amendment 191H, we are told that errors must be of a description identified in a code of practice. The important term here is “code”. The codes of practice are variable: they are not part of the primary legislation. I know I am going to be told about scrutiny of them, but they limit what will be a relevant error and I am a bit doubtful about the sort of scrutiny one is able to give to this type of instrument or document. You would have to be very diligent and on the ball to pick up the connection with this clause.
Finally, Amendment 191J suggests that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner should include these matters in a report—Clause 210, which we are coming to, provides for periodic reports—and make recommendations. I dare say I might be told that he could, of course, make recommendations arising from his reviews of relevant errors and of the definition of a relevant error, but it would be appropriate to link the reviews to the statutory report. I beg to move.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, Clause 207 is clearly of the utmost importance. It provides that if a person has been the subject of a serious error, and it would not be contrary to the public interest, the commissioner must inform them of the error and of their right to apply to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. The judicial commissioner must provide such details as the commissioner considers necessary for the person to bring a claim. I understand the intention behind the amendments to this clause and, of course, support the principle that individuals should have the right to seek appropriate redress if they have suffered serious harm or prejudice as a result of use of the powers under the Bill. However, I do not consider that it would be appropriate for an individual to be notified if that went against the wider public interest.
The threshold that has to be reached before an individual should be notified has been considered very carefully. It has been set to ensure that the rights of the individual who may have suffered as a result of a serious error are balanced against the wider national interest of preserving the operational capabilities of the security and intelligence agencies and those of law enforcement. That is a delicate balance and it is right that the commissioner, with his independence and expertise and with all the facts in front of him—or, indeed, her—is best placed to take that decision on a case-by-case basis.
Amendment 191GB seeks to expand the definition of “relevant error” to include errors by telecommunications operators, who are not, in response to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, public authorities. The definition of what constitutes a relevant error is important for the reporting duties placed on public authorities and telecommunications operators and it is right that those persons should be under a duty to report any relevant errors to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The amendment is also unnecessary. Telecommunications operators already report their errors to the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office. The IPC can comment on any CSP errors in its annual report and can disclose information via Clause 211(2), and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal can investigate errors by telecommunication operators. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that errors by telecommunications operators are very much in the minority.
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner is under a duty to keep under review the definition of a relevant error, so will no doubt raise concerns if they feel that the definition is incorrect. The commissioner’s reports under Clause 210 may include recommendations. They do not, therefore, need to be put under a duty to make recommendations, as Amendment 191J would achieve, if the definition of relevant error is working as intended and there is nothing to recommend.
Clause 207(3) states that a breach of a person’s convention rights is not necessarily a serious error. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, observed that any breach of convention rights is a matter about which we should be very careful. I do not disagree with that. She asked how subsection (3) would affect the privacy provision in Clause 2. It would in no way weaken that clause, I suggest. As for Clause 207(3), which addresses the wording of Article 8, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, observed, Article 8 refers to proceedings that are in accordance with law, and therefore the provision is there in Clause 207(3). Subsection (3) really brings about only a factual clarification. The test for whether an error is serious is whether it has caused significant prejudice or harm to the person concerned. It follows that a breach of a person’s convention rights is not necessarily, or per se, a serious error. It may well be, for the reasons already outlined, but a technical breach that does not cause harm or prejudice may not be sufficiently serious for it to be necessary to inform the person.
One of the amendments seeks to require notification where the error has not caused serious harm or prejudice but may do so in the future. Given the difficult balance that has to be struck here, it is not necessary or appropriate for persons to be informed when the error has not caused them harm or prejudice but may do so in the future. We also consider that this would place the commissioner in the difficult position of speculating. Of course, we would expect the commissioner to keep under review the circumstances related to such an error. If harm was then caused to the person, the commissioner may then decide it is necessary to notify that person.
There will be transparency about this process. Clause 207(8) means that each year the commissioner has to publish the statistics of his or her decision-making. They have to publish the number of errors that they are aware of, which proportion of these they consider to be serious, and then what proportion of those errors were so serious that the public interest was best served by an individual being informed. This provision will ensure that the information will be in the public domain and that the IPC’s approach to errors will be subject to significant scrutiny.
Amendment 191F would require the commissioner, when deciding whether to notify a person, to take into account the matters in the new privacy clause. However, I am afraid that I do not think that the considerations in the privacy clause are directly or strictly relevant to this decision. If a public authority has failed to have regard to the matters in the privacy clause, that in itself may constitute a serious error. However, that will anyway be the case under the Bill as drafted and so this amendment is not necessary on that basis.
Amendment 191FA seeks to remove the need for the IPC to consider whether it is in the public interest for the individual to be informed. If this amendment were accepted, we would end up with a situation in which an individual was informed of an error even if it was completely contrary to the wider public interest for them to be so. I do not consider that that would be appropriate.
The Bill provides that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must provide the individual with the details the commissioner considers necessary to bring a claim in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. That is the manner in which the individual will vindicate their right of relief and is the manner provided for in the Bill. Amendment 191G would additionally require the provision of information “to be proportionate”. We do not think that these requirements are needed and they would tend to erect an additional threshold to be met before information is provided to a potential claimant. Therefore, they might well defeat the amendment’s intent. We think it is sufficient that the person is provided with such information as is necessary.
Similarly, Amendment 191GA seeks to amend Clause 207(6) so that, when informing an affected person, the IPC would have to inform them not only of their rights to apply to the IPT but also of “other details”. Presumably, these details would be over and above what was needed by the individual to bring a claim in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and, of course, further disclosures can be handled by the IPT in the normal way. I am not sure what these extra details would be and they have the potential to damage national security if too much information was given to an individual. I repeat the point made earlier that the Bill provides that the means by which an individual can vindicate their right is by way of an application to the IPT, and they are to be given the necessary information for that purpose. Given all those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beith
My Lords, these amendments address the fact that the fundamental principle in Clause 207 is very heavily qualified, even in cases where the error might be serious. I draw your Lordships’ attention to paragraph 5.42 of David Anderson’s report on bulk powers, in which he deals with errors. He rightly sets this in the context of a strong culture of compliance and self-reporting in the agencies when things go wrong. I agree with that, and it is right that we discuss it in that context. However, the fact remains that there are errors and, as the Minister pointed out, the statistics of errors are reported, so we know what they are. My concern is to be satisfied that most of these errors, if they impinge on the rights of a citizen, are notified to the citizen so that they know they can take further action.
I particularly draw attention to one case. David Anderson says in paragraph 5.42:
“In one very serious incident in 2014, an individual who deliberately undertook a number of unauthorised searches for related communications data had his employment terminated and vetting status withdrawn”.
That clearly indicates the point I made earlier: the agencies take this matter very seriously. I am interested in whether in that case the individual or individuals who may have been the victims of that improper use of the powers would be notified under the provisions of this clause, or whether the clause is so qualified that they might not be. Quite clearly, powers were abused by an individual acting without authority and wrongly, and the individual and the agency paid the price for doing so—he lost his job, which, from the limited description, seems entirely right. However, it is not clear whether the citizen, who had wrongly been the subject of this investigation, would know and would therefore be able to pursue his rights.
Lord Keen of Elie
Clearly, I am not in a position to comment on a particular case. However, in the context of what is said at paragraph 5.42, one has to remember that there is the further issue of whether it would have been in the public interest to make disclosure. That necessary test would have had to be met before there would have been disclosure, however serious the original breach.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I have been listening to the debate and realised that of course people are concerned because they do not know what information is held. Sometimes people get into trouble because something is held on file and they do not know what it is. Only the subject knows what affects them and what does not. To take the example just given, where data may have been gathered by someone who is subsequently fired, that information may have been quite sensitive if revealed to someone in another organisation, and only the individual who was the subject of those unauthorised requests would know that. Therefore, this area bears examination. I am not sure how we should deal with that, but to rely just on the commissioner to know exactly how this would affect everyone would be difficult as well. It is worth thinking about this further.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, on the example my noble friend mentioned, it is hard to think that it would not be in the public interest for somebody who has been the subject of,
“a number of unauthorised searches for related communications data”,
to be notified. Of course I thank the noble and learned Lord for his detailed reply, although I am not sure whether he responded to my amendment on the code of practice.
I do not disagree about the national interest but it does not answer my point about reversing the burden so that the default position would be that there is notification unless it is not in the public interest—or, to put it another way, notification rather than notification only if it is in the public interest that somebody is informed.
On telecommunications operators and the report to the ICO, as the Bill seeks to do throughout, I sought to join up some of the dots in this landscape. Importantly, on the Human Rights Act, the noble and learned Lord says that the considerations in Clause 2 are not relevant; we may have another go at this on Report with a slightly different approach. However, he also said—I know that this was simply a turn of phrase—that Clause 207(3) does not weaken Clause 2, “I suggest”. I hope that he will be able to say that that amounts to an assurance to the Committee. Perhaps I may invite him to do that, otherwise we will certainly come back to this for an assurance.
Lord Keen of Elie
I was expressing my thoughts upon the matter but I hope that I was entirely positive about the point.
Baroness Hamwee
I may have to consider that.
Finally, I turn to the question of whether just details would give rise to a right to make a claim to the tribunal. The way this issue is described, it is almost as though the commissioner is standing in for the tribunal and making an assessment of what has happened. I think that it should be up to the individual to assess that for himself on the basis of information. However, we are in Committee and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this takes us to Clause 208 concerning additional functions. Clause 208(1)—there should be a limit on the size of Bills so that one can handle them easily—provides that a judicial commissioner must give the tribunal the documents and so on as the tribunal requires. The first of my amendments would substitute “request” for “require”. These words are often used as synonyms, but the use of “require” suggests that the documents and information—the matters mentioned in Clause 208(1) —are objectively necessary for the tribunal. I should have thought that the tribunal would have the scope to ask for what it wanted, because I think that one can rely on it not to be frivolous in making requests.
I should have said that I would be speaking to Amendments 191L, 192A, 192B, 192C and 194G. Government Amendment 192 is also in this group. Amendment 191L relates to Clause 210 concerning annual reports. It would require the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to report on the operation of the Act. He or she will have a great deal of experience of far more than simply the functions of the judicial commissioners, as provided for in the Bill. Again, I may be told that this is not necessary because the IPC can always make suggestions about changes to the Act or how it is applied, but in their Amendment 192 the Government have added to the list of non-exclusive items in this clause, and that very amendment suggests to us that it would be appropriate to add our words. The operational purposes are a step removed from the judicial commissioners’ functions, so I do not think that our amendment is out of place. Amendment 192A is consequential.
With regard to Amendment 192B, David Anderson, at paragraph 2.26(g) of his report, wrote:
“The operation of current bulk interception powers is subject to the audit of IOCCO, including its technical inspectorate, and will in future be audited by the IPC. The 2015 ISC Report recommended that the oversight body be given express authority to review the selection of bearers, the application of simple selectors and initial search criteria, and the complex searches which determine which communications are read. That authority is (I am assured by the Home Office) inherent in clauses 205 and 211 of the Bill”.
In a footnote he referred to the Clause 205(5) duty on the IPC to,
“keep under review the operation of safeguards to protect privacy”.
Clause 205 is a general oversight clause. Clause 211 applies to the judicial commissioner in a particular case.
I baulked at the task of trying to deal with the terms “bearers”, “simple selectors”, “initial search criteria” and “complex searches”, so I have opted for a more straightforward amendment to get on record, I hope, the assurance to which Mr Anderson refers—that the authority to review these matters is inherent in Clauses 205 and 211— together with an explanation as to the application of the authority raised by the ISC. I am fairly certain that I have provided this explanation to officials. I hope that the Minister is aware of this and that his briefing covers it—he is looking puzzled—because I sent it to the officials last week. If not, he will perhaps wish to come back to it after today.
Amendment 192 is about the definition of a “relevant person” for the purposes of the judicial commissioner’s powers under the clause. The clause includes “any member of a public authority”. However, given the definitions in other legislation, “a public authority” is not fully defined. My background, as is that of our new Home Office Ministers, is in local government. Therefore, when I hear the term “elected member”, it suggests an elected member, not the authority itself. The authorities listed in Schedule 4 suggest that the schedule is talking about the authorities, not members of authorities. So when a “relevant person” has to disclose documents, provide assistance and so on, who are we talking about? Who is a board member of, say, HMRC or a government department? I do not know and the amendment seeks to understand that term.
Amendment 194G is concerned with the commissioners keeping the performance of the board under review. The TAB annual report stated:
“At the next review the Terms of Reference should be expanded to include sponsor’s obligations, based on Cabinet Office guidance. This should include the requirement to review the performance of the TAB annually, although the scope to carry out such a review will be limited unless and until its main advisory function is called upon”.
The amendment seeks to add that comment to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Perhaps I might raise a couple of points: one on an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and another on government Amendment 192, to which I assume the Minister will be speaking in his response.
The noble Baroness referred to paragraph 2.26(g) of the Anderson report. Without going through the whole issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to David Anderson’s sentence at the end of that paragraph, which states:
“That authority is (I am assured by the Home Office) inherent in clauses 205 and 211 of the Bill”.
I, too, would be grateful to hear the noble and learned Lord repeat that the authority is inherent in Clauses 205 and 211, as David Anderson asked, so that it is very clearly on the record. If the Minister will do that, it will save having to pursue the matter at a later stage.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I will begin by responding to the two particular questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. First, with regard to the observation made by David Anderson in his report at paragraph 2.26(g), I confirm it is the Government’s position that the authority is inherent in Clauses 205 and 211. On the provisions of Amendment 192, which I will come to, it will be in the first instance for the commissioner to determine the content of his report—but if that is not considered adequate, questions will be raised as to whether further particulars should be given.
I come back to Amendment 191K to Clause 208, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which relates to the relationship between the commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. The commissioner will be under a duty to provide all documents, information and assistance that the tribunal needs for its investigation, consideration or determination of any matter. If the tribunal judges that it requires assistance, the commissioner is under a duty to provide it. Just as one wishes to rely on the tribunal’s judgment, so one wishes to rely also on the judgment of the commissioner. That is why it is sufficient in these circumstances that the word “require” should be provided for in the clause. In reality, of course, we expect the commissioner and the tribunal to have a strong working relationship, under which the tribunal will be free to call upon the expertise of the commissioner and their staff as necessary.
I appreciate the intention behind Amendments 191L and 192A to Clause 210 on the reporting duties of the commissioner—but, again, I believe that they are unnecessary. Currently, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must make an annual report about the functions of the judicial commissioners and may make recommendations about their functions. Clause 205 is clear that the function of the commissioner is to review the use of the powers in the Bill by those who are authorised to use them. Therefore, the content of the commissioner’s annual report will be about the operation of the Act once it is in force.
Government Amendment 192 brings forward a change to Clause 210 to make it clear that the commissioner must publish a summary of the use of operational purposes in each of his or her annual reports. No doubt we shall talk more about operational purposes in the coming days in Committee, but this amendment will enhance the oversight and transparency of the use of operational purposes, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, observed. I hope that I have given sufficient clarification of how that report should proceed. Clearly, we will be open to further discussion about that as we go forward.
With respect to Amendment 192C, Clause 211(7)(a) places a duty on,
“any member of a public authority”,
to provide assistance to the judicial commissioners. The Government intend for this duty to be a broad one, encompassing everyone working for that public authority. But I note the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and if that intention is not clear from the drafting, we will reconsider the clause. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to not move her amendment.
Amendment 194G seeks to amend Clause 220, which replaces Section 13 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and provides for the continued existence of the Technical Advisory Board. As I mentioned in previous Committee sessions, the board will advise the Secretary of State on cost and technical grounds if a notice given under Parts 4 or 9 of the Bill is referred by a telecommunications or postal operator for review. The board comprises a balanced representation of those on whom obligations may be imposed by virtue of notices—namely, telecommunications operators—and of those persons entitled to apply for warrants or authorisations under the Bill. These individuals will have a detailed technical understanding of the capabilities provided for by the notices.
Amendment 194G would provide for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to monitor and report on the performance of the board. This, I suggest, is unnecessary. The Technical Advisory Board and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner conduct very different functions during the review process. The primary role of the board is to advise the Secretary of State on cost and technical issues during a review. Should the Secretary of State decide to vary or confirm the effect of the notice after considering this advice, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must review and approve the Secretary of State’s conclusions as to the necessity and proportionality of the notice.
Noble Lords will see that the board will provide a different viewpoint from that of the commissioner during a review. Indeed, the robustness of this safeguard lies precisely in the fact that the board and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner play distinct roles in the review process. As such, it simply would not be appropriate for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to oversee the work of the board.
It is of course right that the Government keep under review the performance of their non-departmental public bodies, including the Technical Advisory Board. This is part of the normal process of ensuring that those bodies adhere to best practice: for example, in their management of resources. I assure noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the Home Office, as sponsor of this board, already does so, adhering to Cabinet Office guidance in the process. The board’s annual report is published on the internet for public scrutiny.
Although I consider that oversight of the board by the commissioner would be inappropriate, I wish to make it clear that the Bill already provides for the commissioner to comment on the work of the board in his or her annual report. Clause 210 allows the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to make recommendations about any matters relating to the commissioner’s functions. The commissioner has oversight of the giving of notices and can therefore make such recommendations as he or she considers appropriate on matters relating to notices, including the role of the Technical Advisory Board in respect of such notices.
I hope that this satisfies the noble Baroness that oversight of the board’s performance by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner really is not necessary. It is my view that the scrutiny of the board’s performance and any changes to its membership continue to be overseen by the sponsoring body, the Home Office, and its Secretary of State, and not by another independent body.
It is also worth noting that, to date, the board has never been required to fulfil its statutory role—hence there has been very little work to scrutinise. This reflects the close consultation between the Government and communications service providers before a notice is given.
I appreciate that Amendment 192B intends to highlight the importance of safeguards to protect privacy. I share this sentiment, and there are safeguards to protect privacy running through the Bill. However, it is for those who are actually utilising the investigatory powers to ensure that safeguards to protect privacy are applied. It is then the job of the judicial commissioner to ensure that they are actually being correctly applied. The Government introduced an amendment to Clause 205(5) to make it clear that the commissioner must keep under review, by way of audit, inspection and investigation, the operation of safeguards to protect privacy.
In these circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am aware that there are a number of noble Lords in the Chamber for the next business, so I will be very brief and mention just a couple of things. On the question of a “public authority”, will the Minister, in one of the very helpful letters that we receive following Committee days, tell us the Home Office’s further thoughts on this to save a possible further amendment at Report?
Lord Keen of Elie
I will endeavour to ensure that that is done before Report in order that the position can be clarified.
Baroness Hamwee
I am grateful for that. My next request is for an explanation of the assurance given with regard to paragraph 2.26(g) of David Anderson’s review. I do not doubt the assurance, but it would be helpful to understand the logic.
Lord Keen of Elie
Again, I am content to write to the noble Baroness on that point.
Baroness Hamwee
I am very grateful for both those assurances and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
“( ) information about the operational purposes specified during the year in warrants issued under Part 6 or 7,”
Yemen: Breaches of International Humanitarian Law
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Baroness Anelay of St Johns)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat as a Statement the response to an Urgent Question given in the other place by Mr Tobias Ellwood MP on the Government’s assessment of breaches of international humanitarian law in Yemen. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, I would like to thank my right honourable friend for raising this important matter. Indeed, recognising the importance of the issue, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary issued a Written Ministerial Statement today to update Parliament on the situation in Yemen. This update specifically includes references to international humanitarian law.
We are aware of reports of alleged violations of international humanitarian law by parties to the conflict, and as I have said on many occasions we take these allegations very seriously.
The Government regularly raise the importance of compliance with international humanitarian law with the Saudi Arabian Government and other members of the Saudi Arabian-led military coalition. The Foreign Secretary raised the issue of international humanitarian law compliance most recently with his Saudi counterpart, Foreign Minister al-Jubeir, on 22 August, and I did so on 25 August in Jeddah.
It is important that, in the first instance, the Saudi Arabian-led coalition conducts thorough and conclusive investigations into incidents where it is alleged that international humanitarian law has been breached. They have the best insight into their own military procedures and will be able to conduct the most thorough and conclusive investigations. It will also allow the coalition forces to understand what went wrong and apply the lessons learnt in the best possible way. This is the standard we set ourselves and our allies.
In this respect, Saudi Arabia announced more detail of how incidents of concern involving coalition forces are investigated on 31 January. The Saudi Arabian-led coalition Joint Investigations Assessment Team publically announced the outcome of eight investigations on 4 August, and further publications will follow.
I would also like to reiterate that clarifications made in the 21 July Written Ministerial Statement do not reflect a change in position. The changes were made to ensure that the parliamentary record is consistent and that it accurately reflects policy.
As outlined in the Statement of 21 July, it is important to make it clear that neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Foreign and Commonwealth Office reaches a conclusion as to whether or not an international humanitarian law violation has taken place, in relation to each and every incident of potential concern that comes to its attention. This would simply not be possible in conflicts to which the UK is not a party, as is the case in Yemen.
The Ministry of Defence monitors incidents of alleged international humanitarian law violations using available information. This is used to form an overall view on the approach and attitude of Saudi Arabia to international humanitarian law. This, in turn, informs the risk assessment made under the consolidated criteria and whether there is a clear risk that it might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We are not acting to determine whether a sovereign state has or has not acted in breach of international humanitarian law but instead, as criterion 2(c) requires, we are acting to make an overall judgment.
In conclusion, I am sorry that there has been confusion. We are responding to two Written Ministerial Statements that were in error. After trawling through other such Statements, of which there are more than 90, four more were seen to be in error. I came to the House today to clarify that. But as soon as I became aware of it, I made a Statement and wrote to the right honourable gentleman and the chairs of the International Development Committee, the Committees on Arms Export Controls and the Foreign Affairs Committee. I hope that that has clarified the situation”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, we had a debate in this Chamber on these matters in January, when I asked the Minister whether it was sufficient to leave these serious breaches in international humanitarian law to conversations with the Saudi Government. It now transpires, eight months later, that we have been under the misleading impression that the Government have been undertaking investigations and reaching evidence-based conclusions, when they have not. The conflict in Yemen is ongoing and the UK is still selling arms to the Saudis. Clearly, the time must be now for the UK Government to suspend arms sales so that there can be a proper investigation into these serious breaches of international humanitarian law.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I mentioned a moment ago in repeating my honourable friend’s Answer, the UK Government do not carry out investigations in these circumstances. Those taking part in the incidents are better placed to report on them. I referred to the press statement put out by the joint incident assessment team, which makes clear its conclusions with regard to the eight incidents. I would be happy to make sure that a copy of it is available to the noble Lord by putting a copy in the Library, as other noble Lords may wish to see it. We have very carefully taken an overall view. Looking at the available evidence, it is clear to us that, given the guidance under the consolidated arms criteria and the EU criteria, the level has not been reached where those criteria have been breached. We therefore do not believe that we are in a position where any of the contracts awarded should be withdrawn.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Statement says that we are not a party to this conflict but surely the supply of arms and weapons to the Saudis makes us an indirect party to it, which gives us a degree of responsibility. We have just had a referendum result which those who supported leaving Europe declared was a declaration of independence from Europe. Those of us who are concerned about British foreign policy are anxious that we should not as a result become more dependent on the Sunni Arab states and the Chinese, since we depend on their markets. Since the Saudis appear to be making a huge mistake by defining a conflict which has deep historical and local roots within Yemen as a Sunni-Shia regional conflict, should we not be more critical of and a little less acquiescent to the Saudi approach?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we are never acquiescent if there are breaches of international humanitarian law and there is evidence to that fact. With regard to the conflict in Yemen, a UNSC resolution—I think that it is Resolution 2216, but if I am to be corrected I will make sure that the noble Lord knows of it—recognises that the current President is a legitimate President. Saleh is not the legitimate President and therefore the Houthis are carrying out a violent activity which is not legitimate. The United Nations has clearly made the point that it is right for us all to seek a solution to the Yemen crisis. I am certainly disappointed that it has not been possible in these last weeks—my honourable friend Tobias Ellwood has recently been in the region—but we strongly support the work of the UN special envoy, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, and his tireless efforts. That is what we need to do.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I know that this question is mostly about arms supplies to the Saudis and Saudi activities, and the tragic and horrific incidents in Yemen. However, can my noble friend confirm, first, that these matters have been raised not only by the Foreign Secretary but, it is reported, by the Prime Minister at the highest level with the Saudi authorities? If so, I welcome that very much. Secondly, although this is not mainstream to the Question, we are told in reports that some of the worst suffering—starvation and the lack of water or food of any kind—is taking place on a very large scale in Yemen at the moment. There is a gigantic humanitarian crisis on top of everything else. Have we any news at all on what steps can be taken with the UN or other international agencies to begin to ameliorate this horrific and terrible situation?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I can confirm that the Foreign Secretary has raised these matters. I will check whether the current Prime Minister has done so; I know that the previous Prime Minister did. However, I will check on that and get back to my noble friend, who raises the point which must affect us all: that one-fifth of the world’s total population who are in need of humanitarian aid live in Yemen. It is 21 million people or 80% of that population. The UK is the fourth-largest donor and we have more than doubled our commitment to Yemen over the last financial year, but what really needs to be done is to find the peace.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, surely the Minister will accept that at the heart of this deepening and horrific conflict, with its humanitarian disasters, is the proxy war being fought between Saudi Arabia and Iran in that arena. Is it not our duty to use our historic alliance with the Saudis, in particular, and our new-found relations through the nuclear treaty with Tehran to make sure that they seek a rapprochement instead of fighting each other at tremendous cost to local people in Yemen?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord makes a very acute observation. I would call upon Iran to make best efforts to avoid doing anything to protract the conflict in Yemen. It is important that in both circumstances Saudi Arabia and Iran are in a position where they make sure that peace can happen. For any country anywhere to carry out a proxy war is something we should deplore.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, is it not a concern to Her Majesty’s Government that, although in the UN system and so-on ex-President Saleh is not the legitimate Government, the legitimate Government have been attacked? The attacks on the ex-government forces are legitimate, according to the UN system. I am following the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, here. The Statement says it,
“would … not be possible in conflicts to which the UK is not a party”.
Are the Government not concerned that we are thought to have a dog in this fight and that we are on the side of the Saudis?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, to use the noble Lord’s rather straightforward analogy, we do not see ourselves as a dog in the fight. We see ourselves as the dog in the peace, working through the United Nations to try to achieve peace. The quad met last week, and we are disappointed that it was not possible for peace to be achieved. We are not going to give up on that. We will continue our work through our allies, and particularly through the UN, to achieve what Yemen needs: to be in a position where 80% of its population can feed themselves instead of being in such dire conditions.
Exiting the European Union
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
“Mr Speaker, I thought it would be useful to the House to be brought up to date on the working of my department after the referendum of 23 June.
Our instructions from the British people are clear: Britain is leaving the European Union. The mandate for that course is overwhelming. The referendum of 23 June delivered a bigger popular vote for Brexit than that won by any UK Government in history. It is a national mandate, and this Government are determined to deliver it in the national interest.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, there will be no attempt to stay in the EU by the back door, no attempt to delay, frustrate or thwart the will of the British people, no attempt to engineer a second referendum because some people did not like the first answer. The people have spoken in the referendum offered to them by this Government and confirmed by Parliament, and all of us, on both sides of the argument, must respect the result. That is a simple matter of democratic politics.
Naturally, people want to know what Brexit will mean. Simply, it means the UK leaving the European Union. We will decide on our borders, our laws and taxpayers’ money. It means getting the best deal for Britain, one that is unique to Britain and not an off-the-shelf solution. This must mean controls on the number of people who come to Britain from Europe but also a positive outcome for those who wish to trade in goods and services.
This is a historic and positive moment for our nation. Brexit is not about making the best of a bad job. It is about seizing the huge and exciting opportunities that will flow from a new place for Britain in the world. There will be new freedoms, new opportunities and new horizons for this great country.
We can get the right trade policy for the UK. We can create a more dynamic economy, a beacon for free trade across the world. We want to make sure our regulatory environment helps rather than hinders businesses and workers. We can create an immigration system that allows us to control numbers and encourage the brightest and the best to come to this country.
But I want to be clear to our European friends and allies: we do not see Brexit as ending our relationship with Europe. It is about starting a new one. We want to maintain or even strengthen our co-operation on security and defence. It is in the interests of both the UK and the EU that we have the freest possible trading relationship. We want a strong EU, succeeding economically and politically, and working with Britain in many areas of common interest. So we should all approach the negotiations to come about our exit with a sense of mutual respect and co-operation.
I know the House will want to be updated about the work of my new Department for Exiting the European Union. It is a privilege to have been asked to lead it by the Prime Minister, and the challenge we face is exciting and considerable. It will require significant expertise and a consistent approach. Negotiating with the EU will have to be got right. We are going to take the time needed to get it right, and we will strive to build a national consensus around our approach.
We start from a position of strength. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, there will be challenges ahead. But our economy is robust, thanks in no small part to the work of my right honourable friend the Member for Tatton. The latest data suggest our manufacturing and service industries and consumer confidence are strong. Businesses are putting their faith and money in this country. Over the summer, SoftBank, GlaxoSmithKline and Siemens all confirmed that they will make major investments in the UK. Countries including Australia have already made clear their desire to proceed quickly with a new trade deal for the UK. As other nations see the advantages to them, I am confident that they will want to prioritise trade deals with the UK. But we are not complacent. Our task is to build on this success and strength and to negotiate a deal for exiting the EU that is in the interests of the entire nation.
As I have already indicated, securing a deal that is in our national interest does not and must not mean turning our back on Europe. We are leaving the European Union—we are not leaving Europe. To do so would not be in our interest, or Europe’s. So we will work hard to help establish a future relationship between the EU and the UK that is dynamic, constructive and healthy. We want a steadfast and successful European Union after we depart.
Therefore, as we proceed, we will be guided by some clear principles. First, as I said, we wish to build a national consensus around our position. Secondly, while always putting the national interest first, we will always act in good faith towards our European partners. Thirdly, wherever possible, we will try to minimise any uncertainty that change can inevitably bring. Fourthly, crucially, we will, by the end of this process, have left the European Union, and put the sovereignty and supremacy of this Parliament beyond doubt.
The first formal step in the process of leaving the European Union is to invoke Article 50, which will start two years of negotiations. Let me briefly update the House on how the machinery of government will support our efforts, and the next steps we will take. First, responsibilities: the Prime Minister will lead the UK’s exit negotiations and will be supported on a day-to-day basis by the Department for Exiting the European Union. We will work closely with all government departments to develop our objectives and to negotiate new relationships with the EU and the rest of the world. Supporting me is a superb ministerial team and some of the brightest and best in Whitehall who want to engage in this national endeavour. The department now has more than 180 staff in London, plus the expertise of more than 120 officials in Brussels, and we are still growing rapidly with first-class support from other government departments.
As to the next steps, the department’s task is clear. We are undertaking two broad areas of work. First, given that we are determined to build a national consensus around our negotiating position, we are going to listen and talk to as many organisations, companies and institutions as possible—from the large plcs to small business, and from the devolved Administrations through to councils, local government associations and the major metropolitan bodies.
We are already fully engaging with the Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure a UK-wide approach to our negotiations. The Prime Minister met the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland in July, and last week I visited Northern Ireland for meetings with its political leaders, where I reiterated our determination that there will be no return to the hard borders of the past. I will visit Scotland and Wales soon.
My ministerial colleagues and I have also discussed the next steps with a range of organisations. My first meeting was with the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, followed by key business groups, representatives of the universities and charitable sectors, and farming and fisheries organisations.
However, this is just the start. In the weeks ahead, we will speak to as many other firms, organisations and bodies as possible—research institutes, regional and national groups and businesses up and down the country—to establish the priority issues and opportunities for the whole of the UK. As part of this exercise, I can announce that we will hold round tables with stakeholders in a series of sectors to ensure that all views can be reflected in our analysis of the options for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The first of these will take place later this month. I will also engage with the member states and am beginning this with a visit to Dublin later this week.
I am working particularly closely with the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Trade. They have been meeting counterparts in Washington, Brussels, Delhi and the capitals of other EU member states. While we do this, my officials, supported by officials across government, are carrying out a programme of sectoral and regulatory analysis that will identify the key factors for British business and the labour force that will affect our negotiations with the EU. They are looking in detail at over 50 sectors and cross-cutting regulatory issues. We are building a detailed understanding of how withdrawing from the EU will affect our domestic policies to seize the opportunities and ensure a smooth process of exit.
The referendum result was a clear sign that the majority of British people wish to see Parliament’s sovereignty strengthened and so, throughout this process, Parliament will be regularly informed, updated and engaged.
We are determined to ensure that people have as much stability and certainty in the period leading up to our departure from the EU. Until we leave the EU, we must respect the laws and obligations that membership requires of us. We also want to ensure certainty when it comes to public funding. The Chancellor has confirmed that structural and investment fund projects signed before the Autumn Statement, and research and innovation projects financed by the European Commission granted before we leave the EU, will be underwritten by the Treasury after we leave. Agriculture is a vital part of the economy, and the Government will match the current level of annual payments that the sector receives through the direct payment scheme until 2020, thus providing certainty.
In terms of the position of EU nationals in the UK, the Prime Minister has been clear that she is determined to protect the status of EU nationals already living here, and the only circumstances in which that would not be possible are if British citizens’ rights in European member states were not protected in return—something that I find hard to imagine.
I am confident that together we will be able to deliver on what the country asked us to do through the referendum. I am greatly encouraged by the national mood: most of those who wanted to remain have accepted the result and now want to make a success of the course that Britain has chosen. Indeed, organisations and individuals I have met already that backed the Remain campaign now want to be engaged in the process of exit, and are identifying the positive changes that will flow from it as well as the challenges. I want us all to come together as one nation to get the best deal for Britain.
In conclusion, we are confident of negotiating a new position that will mean this country flourishing outside the EU while keeping its members as our friends, allies and trading partners. We will leave the European Union, but we will not turn our back on Europe. We will embrace the opportunities and freedoms that will open up for Britain. We will deliver on the national mandate for Brexit, and we will deliver it in the national interest”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the talented Minister for repeating that Statement. We have heard the mantra that “Brexit means Brexit”— simply leaving the EU—but the Prime Minister has suggested that she does not see the UK making an Article 50 application before the end of the year. Would the Minister explain in a little more detail—in these circumstances, he needs to—what he expects to happen between now and the end of the year with regard to that application?
The Secretary of State wrote in July:
“The negotiating strategy has to be properly designed, and there is some serious consultation to be done first”.
This is one reason for taking a little time before triggering Article 50. We have heard in the Statement about the numerous consultation meetings that have been taking place. I welcome those meetings, but the Government have to set out in starting proper consultation what are their objectives. Consultation is meaningless if you do not know what you are being consulted about.
It is also unacceptable that the Prime Minister has taken the undemocratic step of refusing to guarantee Parliament a vote on triggering Article 50. It is vital that Parliament is engaged in the process; we received assurances on this in the past. The specifics of the UK’s future relationship with the EU are not yet known, and such a constitutional change needs direct parliamentary involvement.
If Brexit is seriously about seizing opportunities and putting the national interest first, it means that the Government must have a view on what a successful outcome to negotiation looks like. If they do, when will they tell Parliament and the British people? We need to know.
The Statement refers to uncertainty, and of course we have seen uncertainty creating stress to our economy and particularly in our communities. I return to the subject of EU citizens currently living and working in the UK. They must not be used as a bargaining tool. There are first principles here that need to be addressed. I again ask the Minister to reassure those citizens that they will have the right to remain—to stay—after Brexit. It is not good enough simply to say, “If this happens, that will not happen”. It must be a matter of first principle.
Finally, many parts of the Statement talk about seizing this opportunity. Let me make clear that one thing that I hope will not be seized is the removal of the hard-won rights of workers and people in employment in this country. The protection of those rights will be one of the tests we will put on the successful outcome of the negotiations.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches are very glad to get this opportunity to try to get information from the Government. I fear, however, that we have not got much beyond the slogans of “Brexit means Brexit” and “We’ll make a success of Brexit”—those soundbites. We do not have much that is more concrete. Even if the machinery of government could not have been prepared for a leave result—which I doubt anyway—the apparent lack of political consensus at the top of the Conservative Party on the aims of a Brexit negotiation is disconcerting, to put it mildly. There is anxiety and puzzlement across the political spectrum. For instance, former Education Secretary Nicky Morgan in the Times today demanded a clear plan. On the constitutional side, there is great concern about the unity of our kingdom and the future of peace in Ireland.
The Statement says that there will be no hard border in Ireland, which would indeed be welcome—but how realistic this is depends on whether we are in the single market, whether there is free movement and whether we are in the customs union.
In the words of our EU Select Committee, it would be “inconceivable” that that negotiations on withdrawal and future relations should be conducted “without effective parliamentary oversight”. In the Statement, we are told that the Government want to put,
“the sovereignty and supremacy of this Parliament beyond doubt”.
But the only promise is that we will be,
“informed, updated and engaged”.
That is much less than accountability and real oversight. We on these Benches, like the Opposition, believe that accountability and oversight should be marked by a parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50. Liberal Democrats do not seek or support a second referendum in the term of art which means a rerun of 23 June—but the need for public endorsement of a Brexit deal is an entirely different matter. That is essential, because it will be the first time that voters get any chance to evaluate the reality, and not the fantasy, of Brexit. We on these Benches will hold the Government very carefully to account on how their Brexit actions meet the real interests of this country.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions. Between now and the end of the year we will continue to do what we have started to do: to collect, analyse and look at the evidence on the challenges we face with Brexit. That is the right process and I am very keen to ensure that all noble Lords are involved in it. I have written to the chairmen of the major committees of the House, offering to meet them, and obviously I am willing to give evidence to them. We will do that in a structured way and as openly as possible. As I said, I am very keen that we build a national consensus on this point. On workers’ rights, we wish to consult very closely with the Trades Union Congress—we have already begun this—and others on that precise point and I heed what the noble Lord said.
I know from what noble Lords have been saying from a sedentary position, as well as in the last few minutes, what the views are in some parts of this House on triggering Article 50. I will repeat what the Prime Minister said. The British public gave a very clear instruction on Brexit. We intend to see that through and not to backslide from it. However, we believe—although this matter has been challenged—that the decision to invoke Article 50 is a matter on the international plane and is governed by royal prerogative. As I have said, we will involve Parliament: we will abide by the conventions that already apply and, when it comes to looking at the European Communities Act, by the necessity of Parliament taking votes on that Act and elsewhere.
I am not able to say more than I have already said on reassuring EU citizens. I hear what the noble Lord said about the need to reassure them. As the Prime Minister has already said, we wish to ensure that the rights of EU citizens are protected, so long as the rights of UK citizens across the EU are also protected. We do not imagine that that will not be possible—but that will be a matter for the weeks and months ahead.
Finally, I am sure that noble Lords will have views on what kind of outcome we should look for in these negotiations. Again, as the Prime Minister has said, we are starting the process of looking at the position, analysing the data and coming to a view on what the outcome will be. We are not, therefore, looking at an off-the-shelf approach. This will be a British solution to the challenges that lie ahead.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are three technical realities that we should very much bear in mind in connection with this? First, although it is not mentioned in Article 50, we cannot be rushed at all into giving notice. It is a matter for us to select the timing and nobody can accelerate that process.
Secondly, in paragraph 2 of Article 50 there is a provision for negotiating an agreement for leaving and that agreement should be concluded by the Council on behalf of the European Union. There is nothing at all in the article which sets out what those conditions should be—nor, specifically, what the timing should be.
The third paragraph of Article 50 ordains that the final leaving should be either the date set in the negotiations or two years. It does not say whether it should be the longer period. But it goes on to say that that period can be extended by the unanimous decision of the Council and the agreement of the leaving state. I am sorry to have taken such a long time, but I am sure that the Minister will agree that these are matters of the utmost, supreme importance.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with a lot of experience on this. On his first point, he is absolutely right: the decision on timing the invocation of Article 50 is obviously within our power. That is why we must use this period, mindful of the calls to bring greater certainty and clarity to the situation, to ensure that when we invoke Article 50 we are in possession of all the facts and have a clear idea of the strategy and outcomes we wish to achieve. That seems eminently sensible; to do otherwise would be a complete abrogation of what I believe to be in the national interest, and we should not do so.
As regards unanimity on the decision to extend Article 50 and the deliberations on that, the noble Lord is absolutely right.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Will my noble friend ensure that in getting possession of the facts, as he puts it, and formulating our position, he gets the message to his ministerial colleagues, experts, would-be negotiators and so on that the European Union itself—the other side of the negotiation—is in the grip of enormous forces of change on every side, which affects its fundamental structure and relevance to the modern world? The single market itself is not the single market of the 20th century or even the single market of 10 years ago; it is a completely different structure in which the very nature of export trade means that exports accumulate value in a variety of countries, so the whole export rule of origin system is collapsing at the roots. The additional value of a product is added in all sorts of ways, affecting most modern products and services in many different countries. That means that, with the vast supply chains developing across the world, we should realise that the single market of the past has changed. Therefore, we must be careful that we are negotiating not with the past but with today and tomorrow when we go into these arrangements in future.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend makes a very good point. I thank him for sparing the time to talk to me during the summer about a number of these points. He is absolutely right: clearly, across Europe there are many changes and challenges that we will continue to face, some of which are common to us all. We need to be mindful of the fact that we will wish to do so with our European partners, once we have left the EU.
As regards the shape of the single market, again, my noble friend is absolutely right. He has written eloquently on the subject. I saw it in the private sector myself—for example, not least how the digital revolution is changing whole reams of sectors, how people work, and so on.
Finally, I re-emphasise the point that we approach these negotiations to work in good faith with our European partners. We intend to play our full role, respecting the obligations and rights that we have as a member until we leave, and we shall do so in good faith so that, once we have left, we continue to have a strong working relationship.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have committed themselves today once again to substituting for European expenditure on agriculture; it was said again today in the Statement. Why do they not equally commit themselves to maintaining funds spent by the European Union in the United Kingdom on regional development, where a very large number of jobs are involved? Why just agriculture and not regional development at this stage—or will there be some later statement on that matter?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am more than happy to meet with the noble Lord. I do not know whether he has had a chance to look at the letter the Chief Secretary has placed on the Treasury website; if not, I shall make sure that it is placed in the Library. It was quite a full statement, covering European structural investment funds, saying that,
“the Treasury will work with departments, Local Enterprise Partnerships and other relevant stakeholders to put in place arrangements for considering those ESIF projects … signed after the Autumn Statement”,
so they,
“remain consistent with value for money and our own domestic priorities”.
I am sure that there will be other funding issues that we will want to discuss. My door is absolutely open, and there may be further points to be raised after or around the Autumn Statement. If the noble Lord would like to meet me to discuss them, I would be happy to do so.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
Does my noble friend agree—I am sure he does—that, given the complexity of the negotiations to which he referred, speculation at this stage about what the final terms might be is probably not very helpful? That said, when those final terms are known, is it the Government’s intention to stick to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which specifies that both Houses need to consent to any new treaties that the British Government enter into, or is Parliament going to be bypassed by what was in fact a non-binding referendum?
Lord Bridges of Headley
We intend to stick by the conventions as they are set out in law. Clearly, this is a very complex set of negotiations; it makes the Schleswig-Holstein question look like a GCSE question. However, we should not use that as an excuse to dither or delay. We are therefore pressing ahead will all the points I set out this afternoon to collect and analyse the information as best we can and then to come to a clear decision on the best way forward.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister clarify two points in the Statement he has just repeated? Why are the Government building a detailed understanding of how withdrawal from the EU will affect our domestic policies now, rather than before the referendum was held? Secondly, will he explain how it ensures certainty for EU nationals to be told that their rights will be protected, unless other countries are not protecting the rights of UK nationals? That seems to me the very definition of uncertainty, not certainty.
Lord Bridges of Headley
On the second point, I cannot go beyond what I have already said. I note what the noble Baroness has to say. Contingency plans are a matter for the past. We can obviously have a debate about why that may not be the case but I am now focusing on my new role and the future, and making sure that we get the best deal for Britain.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me raise the core question of the relationship with the Republic of Ireland. Has he received any representations from the Irish Government to the effect that they feel that our decision to leave Europe is a breach of, or threat to, the Belfast agreement? Will he give the House an assurance that the Government remain totally committed to that agreement and will not allow our decision to exit the EU to interfere with the terms and conditions agreed in a referendum in 1998?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the UK’s exit from the European Union does not change the commitment of the UK Government and the people of Northern Ireland to the settlement set out in the agreement and its successors and to the institutions they establish. As I said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will visit Dublin later this week. I am sure that these matters will be raised then.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord has talked a lot about opportunities but they seem to be pretty pious aspirations at this point. He has said nothing at all about the costs, many of which are immediate, palpable and already visible. One appeared today, for example—the threat that the European Medicines Agency, which employs 900 people, will leave this country and perhaps go to Sweden. That is serious enough but, much more seriously, the European headquarters of a number of international pharmaceutical companies will follow the agency if it leaves this country. What are the Government doing about that? Do they care about that sort of thing at all? Do they have a policy on that matter?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I cannot comment on the specifics but I am certainly not sanguine about the costs. There are clearly numerous challenges. I have already met a number of businesses, business organisations and others who have pointed to them. That is what we are trying to assemble right now. If the Statement suggested that we were being complacent, that is absolutely not the case. I am entering into this looking at a glass half full and with a sense of optimism, not pessimism.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, the Government make it clear in the Statement that they want a regulatory regime that helps rather than hinders business. That is clearly a highly desirable objective that I am sure everybody can agree with. However, does the Minister also agree that a number of siren voices are now being raised, trying to suggest that the process of exiting the EU should be used as a device for undoing some of the regulations and rules that have been introduced to govern our financial sector—rules and regulations that are very important in the light of what happened in 2008? Can he give us an assurance that the Government will resist any attempted rush to the bottom through which our regulations become conducive to allowing the sort of abuses we have seen earlier?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend makes a good point. I will pick my words with extreme care, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for not being very open about the specifics. The regulations and the regulatory reform package we have gone through since the crash have enabled us to restore financial stability and credibility to the system, and we will need to proceed with extreme caution on that. As regards looking at regulations in the round, the noble Lord asked earlier about workers’ rights and I put this in the same package. We need to build a national consensus around where we go, treading with care and caution to ensure that we protect our economy and its strength. The overriding aim of this is to leave the European Union, full stop.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister fill in what I think was a gap in the Statement? There was no mention at all of justice and home affairs and the co-operation we have on matters such as counterterrorism, dealing with drugs and human trafficking, and so on. Surely that ought to be a high priority in the work his department is doing on preparing negotiations. Secondly, can he enlighten the House as to what use his department is making of the balance of competences review, which was done at such enormous cost by the previous Government?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord makes some good points. On justice and home affairs, he is absolutely right. Obviously, we will very much focus on our future relationships in that area. As regards the next few months and years, Julian King has been appointed to look after security issues, so we will also look to him to support our work in this area. The balance of competences review was an enormous piece of work and, as others have suggested to me, we need to look at that, too.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I acquit the Minister of any responsibility for this astoundingly vacuous Statement, because he is simply delivering it. However, it is deeply disturbing that we do not have a clue what the Government’s agenda is; for example, the Japanese Government wrote an unprecedented letter to the UK and the Prime Minister contradicts the claims and objectives of the Brexit leaders, who themselves are reneging on them. The Minister promised to update, inform and engage Parliament, and that is welcome, but surely we need a promise of an amendable Motion, tabled in both Houses, on the final deal, with the people then having a chance to make a decision on that deal.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord’s final point. As regards where we are right now, he cites the Japanese Government and their ambassador. The Japanese ambassador this morning praised the “cautious and very patient” approach of the Prime Minister and said that what was needed were,
“well-thought through considerations before you start any negotiations”.
That is exactly what we are trying to do and, with the help of your Lordships, I am sure we will make a good job of it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, when the terms are negotiated and finally agreed, there will be nothing undemocratic or inappropriate about seeking the votes and views of the electorate as to whether they want to depart the European Union on the negotiated terms. In the meantime, this House and Parliament as a whole have a right to be consulted in detail about what is being discussed and to be given an opportunity to vote on a votable resolution.
Lord Bridges of Headley
It pains me to disagree with my noble friend, for he is a friend—at least, I hope he is. I am sorry to say that, as the Prime Minister has made clear on many occasions, we intend to see Brexit through. As I said, it was the biggest ever vote as regards the mandate we have for this, the Conservative manifesto pledged to respect the outcome of the referendum, and Parliament voted for the referendum by a margin of six to one. That is the current position, and I am sorry to say that it will not change.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we wish the noble Lord luck in his new post, and I am sure everyone in this House will accept the outcome of the referendum, although the idea that it was a clear decision seems ludicrous to many of us. Our job as the House of Lords is to question in detail the Government’s proposals as they are put to us, and I am sure we will do that. The Government’s job will be to take account of the national interest as well as how they interpret the outcome of the referendum. Can the Government, as an early task, set out what they regard as the relationship between the domestic regulatory framework and changing international regulatory frameworks? The single market was, after all, a Thatcherite achievement. Mrs Thatcher pressed for common regulatory frameworks across Europe as an improvement on the previous situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, now we have to adapt it to the digital world and so on, but some of the Minister’s colleagues—Liam Fox, for example —appear to think that we are still in a 19th-century free-trade world in which tariffs are all that matter. It might help to clear the air if the importance of regulatory frameworks, domestic, European and global, were spelled out by the Government as they set out how they will go ahead.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I heed what the noble Lord says; he and I have spoken about these points recently. I completely understand the complexity—and he touches on just part of one area of complexity here. We are looking at that, and I would like to talk to the noble Lord about that in person. As regards when we set that out, as I say, I am not in a position to go into further detail at this precise juncture.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
We have heard a good deal about votes and democracy. Can the Minister confirm my reading of the situation, which is that, as I recall, there have been two crucial votes? One was the overwhelming vote in this House and in the Commons to have a referendum on whether we should remain in or leave the European Union. In brackets, for me there is no ambiguity about the word “leave”—I have never encountered that in any correspondence I have ever had about anything. The other vote was the vote of the British people, by a substantial majority—a two-thirds majority in large sections of the West Midlands, which is the area I know best—to leave the European Union. Does he therefore agree that for this House to have a Division on whether to implement Article 50, which to all intents and purposes would be a vote on whether we accept the verdict of the British people in the referendum, would be a dangerous and profoundly undemocratic route for this House to take?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I completely agree with the noble Lord. I have a copy of the ballot paper in front of me and it is very simple. It states:
“Remain a member of the European Union”,
or, “Leave the European Union”. There is no small print or anything else. I agree with every word he said.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree, however, that the essence of a parliamentary democracy is that the Government of the day are answerable to Parliament, not the other way round? Therefore, when terms have been agreed—I profoundly hope that they will be good terms that we can all applaud—it is essential that Parliament votes on those terms, and absolutely crucial that the elected House of Commons has the final say in that regard.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I repeat what I said in response to my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones: we will respect the conventions and the law as they currently stand. I respectfully point out to my noble friend our pledge in the Conservative manifesto to respect the outcome of the referendum.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has rightly prioritised providing certainty. Can he therefore reassure Britain’s businesses that, when it comes to a negotiating position, the Government will argue for retaining full access to the single market?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, as I said, we are looking at all the evidence before us as regards the needs, challenges and concerns of business. As the Prime Minister herself said, at this juncture we are not in a position to go into detail on this other than to say that we are not looking at an off-the-shelf response to what the outcome might be. We wish to come up with a strategy that will deliver for Britain.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I agree with the assessment by the Department for Exiting the European Union that it has a superb ministerial team and some of the brightest and best in Whitehall. An indication of the brilliance of the team is that we have probably spent 40 minutes on this topic and have gleaned two new facts in the course of this question and answer session. Those two facts concern the number of meetings that Ministers will have between now and our leaving the European Union. I go back to the question about justice. What work is being done on whether we are going to keep the European arrest warrant arrangements and will continue to share information in accordance with the Prüm agreement? Why is there a delay in coming to a conclusion on those two issues?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I cannot answer the noble and learned Lord—who speaks, as he does so often, with incisiveness and complete clarity—on those two specific points, although I can certainly write to him. As I said, a lot of work is going on in relation to the whole area that was raised earlier. We will continue to engage with the noble and learned Lord and others right across the House to ensure that we come up with the best outcome.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that describing membership of the internal market as a detail, as he just did in answer to my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield, will be seen as astonishing by 26 other countries looking across the English Channel? What is going on here? If a decision is postponed for very much longer, will we not be left with a dog’s breakfast? The British Bankers’ Association has written an article in the Financial Times saying, “All this is okay. We can leave the internal market for other people as long as it does not affect us. We’ll have a deal that is good for us”, and the agricultural community says the same. Everybody thinks they can cherry pick, but that will not work in a negotiation with the rest of the Community.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I must correct myself if I said that it was a detail. I do not believe that. The ability to trade with EU member states is vital to our prosperity. As regards cherry picking, the whole purpose of the undertaking that we are now engaged in—that of collecting evidence—is to understand individual sectors’ challenges, concerns and opportunities as we go ahead, and then to assemble all that and come up with a comprehensive strategy. On that, I cannot really go further.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, following the consultation that the Government are undertaking at the moment and before they decide to trigger Article 50—however they do that—should not we, as Parliament, receive, in the form of a White Paper, a Green Paper or at least some sort of substantive document, details of the opening negotiation position of the British Government so that we as Parliament and the British electorate, whichever way they voted, understand where we are starting from?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I cannot comment in detail on whether we will adopt the vehicle and the approach that the noble Lord sets out, but obviously I will take away that point and discuss it. I simply repeat that we will keep Parliament fully informed and engaged as we go along.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the Statement mentions that the Minister’s department now has more than 180 staff in London, plus the expertise of more than 120 officials in Brussels. We are at the very beginning of the whole process of renegotiating and drafting legislation, and we are going to need far, far more officials. Where are they going to come from? Can the Minister reassure me that the Government will not get expertise from companies such as McKinsey? I have nothing against McKinsey but it is hugely expensive to get people in from those companies. We need more civil servants, but where are they going to come from and when will they arrive?
Lord Bridges of Headley
We are fully aware of the challenge that we face and the noble Baroness is absolutely right. We have been inundated with offers—not just from consultancies but from right across the board—from individuals and organisations wanting to help. We are fully engaged. As the noble Baroness rightly implies, the first step is to ensure that we use the best talent that already exists, and we are doing that. We have spent the last few weeks assembling a team and an office to make sure that we get into a good position to do all the things that I have been talking about this afternoon. That work is continuing, and we are continuing to build up the team. We know that the challenge we face is considerable and that on the other side of the table will be a sizeable and equally experienced team. If the noble Baroness has ideas on who to talk to, I shall be happy to hear them.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister is having difficulty with the foot-dragging that is going on and the criticism of government policy, I simply say to him that a large number of Members of your Lordships’ House believe that any project, however difficult, is best supported by wholehearted enthusiasm for getting on with it. I am one of those people. I believe that many in your Lordships’ House agree with what he is doing and wish the Government well in this project.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I thank my noble friend very much. I use this opportunity to say once again that my door is very much open to all your Lordships to discuss the matters and challenges that lie ahead.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I am very pleased that the Prime Minister has made it very clear that Brexit means Brexit and that there will not be another referendum. The people have spoken and, if I may quote somebody else, long live the people. Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord two questions. First, in the vote in 1971, did Parliament give all the treaty powers to the Government, and does any other treaty abrogate what was then done?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
No, it was 1971. There was another vote in 1972 on a different matter, but the 1971 decision was to hand over the power of Parliament to the Government of the day. I am asking whether that has been abrogated since. Secondly, once Article 50 is brought into operation, surely we do not have to take two years to negotiate a settlement. Can we not make the negotiation shorter than that? Perhaps the noble Lord can answer that.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me as I will need to come back to him on the position in 1971—I was not very old at the time—but I completely take his point that this matter is key. I repeat that we will stand by the conventions and the laws that currently exist as regards treaty ratification. As regards Article 50, I think the noble Lord is referring to paragraph 3. The point here is that it will take two years to get to the end of the process. There would obviously still need to be a deal following that and we would need to go through the process set out in Article 50 to get that ratified by the Council. The noble Lord may be right but perhaps I may write to him to clarify that point.
Junior Doctors: Industrial Action
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the junior doctors’ industrial action:
“Mr Speaker, I regret to inform the House that last week the British Medical Association announced it was initiating further rounds of industrial action over the junior doctors’ contract. It involves a series of week-long all-out strikes between now and Christmas which was scheduled to start next Monday, although this afternoon the BMA delayed the first strike until 5 October. This afternoon’s news delaying the first strike is of course welcome, but we must not let it obscure the fact that the remaining planned industrial action is unprecedented in length and severity, and it will be damaging for patients, some of whom will already have had operations cancelled.
Many NHS organisations, including NHS England, NHS Providers, the NHS Confederation and NHS Improvement, have expressed concern about the potential impact on patient safety. Indeed, this morning the General Medical Council published its advice to doctors on the strike action. While recognising a doctor’s legal right to take industrial action, it urges all doctors in training to pause and consider the implications for patients, saying that,
‘given the scale and repeated nature of what is proposed, we believe that, despite everyone’s best efforts, patients will suffer’.
Many others have also questioned whether escalating strikes is a proportionate or reasonable response to a contract that the BMA junior doctors’ leader, Dr Ellen McCourt, personally negotiated and supported in May. She said then the new contract was:
‘Safer for our patients, safer for our junior doctors … and also fair’.
She also said that with respect to junior doctors the new contract,
‘really values their time, values them as part of the workforce, will really reduce the problem of recruitment and retention, emphasises that all doctors are equal, and has put together a really good package of things for equalities’.
We recognise that since those comments the new contract was rejected in a ballot by BMA members, but it is deeply perplexing for patients, NHS leaders and indeed the Government that the reaction of the BMA leadership, who previously supported the contract, is now to initiate the most extreme strike action in NHS history, inflicting unprecedented misery on millions of patients up and down the country.
We currently anticipate around up to 100,000 elective operations will be cancelled and up to 1 million hospital appointments will be postponed, inevitably impacting upon our ability to hit the vital 18-week performance standard. Today I want to reassure the House that the Government and NHS are working around the clock to make preparations for the strikes. All hospitals will be reviewing their rotas to ensure critical services such as A&E, critical care, neonatal services and maternity services are maintained. The priority of all NHS organisations is to ensure patients have access to the healthcare they need and the risks to patients are minimised, but the impact of such long strikes will severely test this.
As with previous strikes, we cannot give an absolute guarantee that patients will be safe, but hospitals up and down the country will bust a gut to look after their patients in this unprecedented situation and communicate with people whose care is likely to be affected as soon as possible.
Turning to the long-term causes of the dispute, it is clear that for the BMA negotiators it has been about pay, but I recognise that for the majority of junior doctors there is a much broader range of concerns, including the way their training is structured, the ability to sustain family life during training periods, the gender pay gap and rota gaps. After the May agreement we set up a structured process to look at these concerns outside the contract and I intend this work to continue.
Health Education England has been undertaking a range of work to allow couples to apply to train in the same area, to offer training placements for those with caring responsibilities close to home, to introduce a new catch-up programme for doctors who take maternity leave or time off for other caring responsibilities and to look at the particular concerns of doctors in their first year of foundation training. Today HEE has set out further information for junior doctors about addressing these non-contractual concerns and we are proceeding with the gender pay review that I mentioned in my last Statement to the House on this issue.
We have also responded to specific concerns raised by Dr McCourt. First, the BMA, NHS Employers and Health Education England have agreed changes to strengthen whistleblowing protections for junior doctors beyond the scope of existing legislation so that junior doctors can take legal action against HEE, in relation to whistleblowing, as if HEE was their employer.
Secondly, in direct response to the concerns raised by Dr McCourt over the role of the independent guardian of safe working hours, NHS Employers has written to all NHS chief executives to set out in considerable detail the expectations for the new guardian role. As of 2 September, 186 out of 217 guardians had been appointed with the involvement of BMA representatives, with a further 15 interim arrangements in place, and it is expected that all will be appointed by early September.
Many junior doctors have expressed concern about rota gaps and the new contract acknowledges and tackles this concern. The guardians of safe working hours will report to trust and foundation trust boards on the issue of rota gaps within junior doctor rotas. This will shine a light on this issue and it will be escalated, potentially to the CQC and the GMC, where serious issues are not addressed. I would strongly urge all those contemplating taking industrial action to consider the progress that is being made in all these areas before making their final decision.
With respect to the broader debate about seven-day care, we recognise that many doctors have concerns about precisely what the Government mean by a seven-day NHS. As Sir David Dalton publicly stated last week, we offered to insert details of our seven- day plans into the May agreement, in particular to reassure doctors that we do not intend simply to stretch services currently delivered over five days over seven days. However the BMA asked us to remove that reassurance from the May agreement, so it is extremely disappointing that it now says the need for more clarity over seven-day services is one of the reasons for the strike.
Let me therefore repeat further reassurances on that front today. First, while the changes to the junior doctors contract are cost neutral—that is, the overall pay bill for the current cohort of junior doctors will not go up or down—our seven-day service policy is not cost neutral and will be funded out of the additional £10 billion provided to the NHS over this Parliament.
Secondly, while the pay bill for the current number of junior doctors will not increase, we do expect the overall pay bill to go up as we have committed to employ many more doctors to help meet our commitment on seven-day services. That means our plans are not predicated on simply stretching the existing workforce more thinly or diluting weekday cover.
Thirdly, we recognise that junior doctors already work very hard, including evenings and weekends, and while we do need to reduce weekend premium rates that make it difficult to deploy the correct levels of medical cover, we expect this policy to have greater implications for the working patterns of other workforce groups, including consultants and diagnostic staff.
Finally we have no policy to require all trusts to increase elective care at weekends. Our seven-day services policy is focused on meeting four clinical standards relating to urgent and emergency care, meaning vulnerable patients on hospital wards at weekends will get checked more regularly in ward rounds by clinicians, and clinicians will be able to order important test results for their patients at weekends.
Even despite these reassurances there may remain honest differences of opinion on seven-day care, but the way to resolve them is through co-operation and dialogue, not confrontation and strikes which harm patients. To those who say these changes are demoralising the NHS workforce, I say that nothing is more demoralising or more polarising than a damaging strike. It is not too late to turn decisively away from the path of confrontation and put patients first, and I urge everyone to consider how their own individual actions in the coming weeks will impact on people who desperately need the services our NHS offers.
This Government will not waver in their commitment to make the NHS the safest, highest-quality healthcare system in the world, and I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for making the Statement.
Clearly the prospect of a series of five-day strikes is very worrying, coming after the protracted negotiations, agreement between the negotiators and then the subsequent ballot rejection. The promised action, though now delayed, would have a damaging impact on patients, the NHS and the junior doctors themselves. However, the Secretary of State and the Government cannot escape their own responsibility for the threatening catastrophe.
At the heart of this dispute is a complete absence of trust by the junior doctors in the Government and, specifically, the Secretary of State. It is not hard to see why. Towards the end of the Statement the noble Lord mentioned a seven-day service. It is the conflation of the seven-day service issue with the junior doctors’ contract which has exacerbated an already difficult situation, particularly as it is the junior doctors on whom the service is so dependent for out-of-hours working.
The Minister did not mention the advice received from officials but he knows that the documents obtained by the media outlining the risks detailed by officials on the seven-day NHS were clear in their assessment that the NHS was likely to have too few staff and too little money to deliver a truly seven-day NHS. Moreover, it gives the lie to the last sentence of the Statement where the Secretary of State comes out with all that blah about making the NHS the safest, highest-quality service in the world when everyone knows that it is crumbling through a lack of resources, a lack of staff and a lack of leadership. We have a Secretary of State who is in his own world, one that is occupied by no one else. He is charging ahead with implementing the seven-day working week without the resources, staff and support needed to do it.
Let me be clear: no one more than I would like to see a truly seven-day working NHS, but that is dependent on the resources being available to ensure its proper implementation. What I deplore—and this is a core reason for the disenchantment among junior doctors—is the Secretary of State’s distortion of the statistics in relation to weekend mortality figures to justify the imposition of the contract.
I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, he referred to the contingency plans being put in place by the NHS, but clearly with the postponement or cancellation of the first proposed action there is now time for the NHS to give more consideration to those contingency plans. I wonder if he can tell the House a little more about them. Secondly, the chief executive of NHS Providers has warned that with little notice the unprecedented action,
“will cause major disruption and risk patient safety”.
What discussions have taken place between Mr Hopson and Ministers to discuss his concerns? Thirdly, where elective operations and clinics may be cancelled as a result of the promised late action, what assurances can the public be given that new dates will be scheduled as quickly as possible?
Can the noble Lord say what discussions have taken place between the Department of Health and junior doctors? In its statement today announcing the postponement of the action, the BMA has said that it will call off further action if the Secretary of State stops his imposition of the contract, listens to the concerns of junior doctors and works with the BMA to negotiate a contract based on fresh agreed principles that have the confidence of junior doctors. What is the Minister’s response to that statement by the BMA? It has been reported in the media that the Secretary of State has refused to engage with the junior doctors. Can he confirm whether that is the case, and if so, why is that the position?
Finally, what are the Government’s plans to restore junior doctors’ trust in the National Health Service? There is a clear risk that the morale of a whole generation of doctors is being destroyed as we speak. When that is put alongside the implications of Brexit and the potential loss of experienced staff through the decision by many junior doctors to leave the profession or to go abroad, this is a worrying position. I have met a number of junior doctors over the past few months. They are clever, articulate and passionate about the NHS, but they have told me about the pressures that they are under, of the risky gaps that we now have in rotas which have developed over the past few years, of locums not always being available, of existing staff having to cover gaps at short notice, and of being hugely dependent on the good will of many staff, including junior doctors. The Statement of the Secretary of State is full of warm words about junior doctors’ working conditions, but as the Minister knows, the fact is that they do not have confidence in them. Frankly, I also do not think they have confidence in local management to implement the proposed contract in a way that is sensitive to their working conditions.
At the annual meeting of the Royal College of Physicians, its chairman pointed to the need for junior doctors to be valued, supported and motivated. Some months ago the RCP wrote to the Secretary of State outlining recommendations for improving conditions in training, including protected time for training and the promotion and support of flexible working, publishing rotas earlier and prioritising handover sessions. What progress has been made in responding to the sensible suggestions made by the Royal College of Physicians, and above all what are the Government going to do to endeavour to get back the confidence of junior doctors in the NHS and thus seek an end to this action?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the noble Lord has raised many questions in his response to our Statement. He may well have read the article published earlier this week in the Times by Sir Simon Wessely, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which goes to the heart of what I would call the non-contractual issues that have bedevilled, coloured and provided the context for this dispute:
“Changes to the way that doctors are trained means that juniors face switching not just jobs but addresses every few months without much say about where they end up and when. Many seem condemned to spending years rootlessly shuffling from one place to another like lost luggage. Without any familiar faces, long hours are endured in relative isolation and managers who change all the time provide little or no recognition, let alone reward”.
This in a sense is what lies behind much of the dispute. The fact is that we had a contract that was wholeheartedly welcomed by Dr Ellen McCourt, now the president of the BMA, and by the association itself. The issues of difference in the contract were pretty small.
We have been discussing this contract for three years now and the Government have made 103 concessions. The Secretary of State’s door has been open throughout that time. The new contract is due to be introduced in October and at some point we really have to get on and introduce it. There is provision within it to review aspects as it goes forward. We have committed to looking at the gender pay issues that have been raised by the BMA and today HEE has published the work that it is doing on non-contractual issues with the BMA when the association is prepared to talk to it. The Government are bending over backwards to meet the BMA, but there comes a point where we just have to bite the bullet and go ahead with the contract that has been agreed, and that is the place we are in now.
The noble Lord referred to a lack of trust in local management and in the Secretary of State, but we now have the guardians of safe working hours built into the contract. They have a contractual commitment to report every quarter to the boards of trusts and to the GMC and the CQC every year. Plenty of independent safeguards have been built into the new contract. So while of course I understand many of the issues raised by the noble Lord, the Government have gone the extra yard every time they have been asked to do so and now we must get on and introduce this contract.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for not getting up quickly enough to add my questions from the opposition side before he gave his last response. We on these Benches welcome the fact that the strike planned for next week has been postponed. I think we have all taken very much to heart what was said by the GMC this morning. I hope the Minister can give an assurance that the Secretary of State will take this breathing space as an opportunity to get back around the table with the junior doctors not only to explore the details of the contract, which may not yet have been hammered out to everyone’s satisfaction, but to get to the core of the reasons why they are so up in arms.
I am very impressed by the fact that when junior doctors are marching along the street, they are not shouting, “Save our weekend pay” or “Save our training structure”, they shout, “Save our NHS”. That is what every single doctor in this country is committed to. The reason why doctors are so concerned is not the Government’s intention to make tests or more frequent investigations available on Saturdays and Sundays for patients in hospital, it is the fact that there are gaps in the weekday rotas now. The Minister is saying that there will be extra money and extra doctors. Where are they going to come from? Does he know how many doctors have investigated the possibility of emigrating or have even actually emigrated since the beginning of this dispute? I ask this because I am hearing about it all the time. I wonder where the new doctors will come from in order first to fill the gaps in the weekday rotas and then to provide extra services at the weekend. The £10 billion mentioned in the Statement is clearly not enough when we already have a £22 billion black hole in the NHS.
Over the Summer Recess we had so many news stories about units being closed, not just to reconfigure the services and provide better service for patients, but to save money, because the system is desperate to do that in the short term. The sustainability and transformation plans clearly do not have the confidence of the doctors, partly because they are very opaque and partly because they are very short term. They are picking up on any short-term economies they can make, rather than looking at the very long-term savings that might be made and bring better provision for patients. Will the noble Lord say where the extra doctors are coming from and how the Government plan to convince existing doctors in this country that they will be fully supported if they are to implement the Government’s policy?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the noble Baroness made a valid point when she said that when she meets junior doctors on their demonstrations or marches, they are concerned about the NHS—rightly so; it will be a sad day when doctors are not concerned about the future of the NHS—but that is no reason for going on strike over this contract. We are perfectly happy to have a debate with them. We will disagree and agree on some things, but to launch a wave of strikes over this cannot be right. As the noble Baroness indicated, it is not the contract that they are worried about at all; they are worried about much more general things than the state of the contract.
Staffing is a big issue. There is no question but that after the Mid Staffordshire tragedy, we saw a huge increase in agency staffing. We saw that increase because we did not train enough of our own doctors and nurses. That is a long-term issue about increasing training numbers, but, in the meantime, part of the £10 billion of extra money we agreed to put into the NHS, which the noble Baroness’s party agreed to do at the last general election, has to go towards increasing staffing in our hospitals.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend should take every opportunity to remind the electorate and the public who will be affected by these strikes that junior doctors are now refusing to accept and proposing to strike against an agreement that many of their leadership, including those now defending the strike, characterised as safe and fair. That is an absurd proposition.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, it is important that we distinguish between junior doctors, who are working incredibly hard in the NHS, and the BMA leadership in this case. I think the vast majority of junior doctors bitterly regret having to go on strike and will be extremely concerned about the huge damage it will do to patients’ interests. We are perfectly entitled to remind everybody that it was the leadership of the BMA who characterised this contract as being safe for patients and good for doctors.
Lord Warner (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I ask the Minister to go back to the non-contractual issues. As Sir Simon Wessely explained very well, they are the nub of this. The Secretary of State now has a major trust problem because these negotiations have gone on for so long. It has become very personal. If he wishes to convince the medical profession, in particular those thinking of coming into the medical profession, that he is serious about putting the medical workforce’s house in order, he has to do something—possibly step aside—to develop these ideas with the profession.
Can the Minister confirm that the number of people applying to medical school has dropped by nearly 14% over the last two years? There are so many vacancies now in medical schools that they have to recruit people to fill those slots through UCAS clearing. One-fifth of middle grades in the junior grades are vacant. In this situation—with people emigrating and with Brexit—we cannot expect young people to join this profession. The Secretary of State has to take some responsibility for changing that culture, bringing in some people to help change it and convincing the profession that it has a future.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a number of extremely good points. I am not aware of that 14% decline in applications to medical school. If that is true, it is clearly very serious. I did hear a rumour that one medical school had to use clearing to fill the number of students coming in, but overall there is still a huge demand for people who want to go to medical school and they are still recruiting people with the best academic and other qualifications. On the noble Lord’s fundamental point, we have to rebuild trust in the medical profession. It was for that reason, in the main, that the Secretary of State asked Health Education England to lead the discussions on non-contractual issues, rather than being involved with it directly himself. I am sure that is the right way to approach this issue.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, during the previous Statement the Government were at great pains to emphasise that they are totally committed to implementing all the promises made by the Brexit campaign to the British people during the referendum. We now hear reports that the very prominent promise made to the British people during that campaign to give the NHS another £350 million a week will not be fulfilled. Why have the Government decided to renege on that particular promise?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I am not sure the Government ever made that promise. That was a promise made by the Brexit campaign. The Government have committed to putting an extra £10 billion into the NHS over the course of the Parliament, but they are certainly not in any way committed to fulfilling promises or pledges made by the Brexit campaign.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, we can all be gratified that the junior doctors have decided to postpone their strike. I am sure that this is partly as a result of the pressure being put on them by senior doctors. They are the ones who know the consequences for patient safety because they are ultimately responsible when things go wrong. David Watkin, a past president of the Association of Surgeons, has written a letter to the Times today in response to Simon Wessely’s letter. He makes the interesting point that there is a real issue about the way our junior doctors feel supported—or should I say unsupported. There has been the loss of the firm structure whereby junior doctors worked part and parcel in a team, and they and a consultant knew each other, trusted each other and could rely on each other. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that has gone partly because of shift working, rota gaps and the need to fill those gaps.
Brexit provides an opportunity, whether we like it or not, to take time and look again at two regulations: the European working time directive, and the new deal. The main thing about the European working time directive is that some junior trainees—particularly in my specialty, surgery—wanted to work longer than 48 hours a week. For all other specialties you have to acquire knowledge, but for surgery, cardiology, nephrology and some other specialist areas, you have to learn the skills. Learning and acquiring skills takes time. Can we look at Brexit as an opportunity to assure some of our junior doctors, who feel unloved and unsupported, that there may well be a way to look at and improve their working practices?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the origins of this dispute and lack of trust go back many years, to the end of the old firm structure. Many junior doctors feel a lack of support. It is easy to lob bricks at the Government, but the senior doctors and the royal colleges need to look at themselves pretty carefully and pretty hard in the mirror because they have some responsibility for this as well. I hope they will be very much part of working through some of these non-contractual issues, along the lines my noble friend suggested.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that this does not impact simply on junior doctors but that these strikes and the current chaos affect all the manpower within the NHS, particularly the registered nurses, who have to pick up a great deal of the slack in the absence of junior doctors, particularly when they are on strike? Rather than look at these issues at silos, I implore the Minister to look at the whole workforce and try to ensure that the modern workforce serving a modern NHS is one where integrated services mean integration of staff as well.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. The changes that are coming upon the NHS, whether from technology or forced upon us, in a sense, by demographic change in the UK— meaning that much care that has traditionally been delivered in hospitals will need to be delivered outside hospitals in people’s homes and much care will be delivered by technology rather than directly by people—are all going to have a huge impact on a whole range of different staff levels, not just junior doctors.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that I am in a doctors’ family? My wife worked full-time in a big practice. She worked every weekend and did her share of out-of-hours work. My son is a doctor. I hope some of the grandchildren will be. These young men and women volunteer to enter this profession, do they not? They take an oath, do they not? What the public find incomprehensible is that after several years of negotiation, they understood there to be an agreement and a recommendation from the then leadership of the junior doctors—agreed to by even the present leadership of the junior doctors—but once again the public are back on the rack. Is that not totally unacceptable?
I am afraid that I draw an analogy with the three-day week. I was the director of an advertising agency, responsible for the standby advertising. The miners’ strike required the Government of the day to publish the terms that they were offering to the miners on that occasion. I urge my noble friend to consider whether the time has not come for the public—the people, the patients—to be told exactly what was agreed in the summer and what additional benefits will be put forward to the junior doctors; I understand there are some. The public are the ones who will suffer. I do not want—as I am sure the rest of the House does not—to see patients suffer.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the contract that has been offered to the junior doctors is not confidential. It can be made available to the public. Indeed, I think the main terms of that contract have been made available to the public. My noble friend is absolutely right that members of his family—and, indeed, my family and others we know—enter the medical profession as a vocation or a calling. It is an awful shame that that seems to have been lost in the dispute that has been happening over the past few months.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, following on from that point, is there not a case for the presidents of the royal colleges to have a greater leadership role? Is there not a case for the Secretary of State and my noble friend, in whose negotiating skills I have very great confidence, calling in the presidents to discuss this and see whether there is not some opportunity of rebuilding trust between individuals at the head of the profession and those junior doctors who are clearly disenchanted, disaffected and, frankly, behaving in a way that is not compatible with a true vocation?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I think there is a huge opportunity here—actually, a necessity—for senior leaders in the profession, in the royal colleges, to play a really serious leadership role. Rather than standing on the touchline, if you like, they need to get on the pitch. There is a role for them. To some extent, they were instrumental in getting the two sides back to work again back in May. They were successful in doing that. Certainly, I know the Secretary of State would be very happy to listen to any thoughts that they have.
Investigatory Powers Bill
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Referrals by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament
(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament refers a matter to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with a view to the Commissioner carrying out an investigation, inspection or audit into it.(2) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must inform the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament of the Commissioner’s decision as to whether to carry out the investigation, inspection or audit.”
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, in the House of Commons, in response to the chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee—my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve MP—the Government agreed that the ISC could refer matters to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner but that it would be entirely at the discretion of the IPC as to whether or not he or she undertook further investigation. On Report my right honourable friend suggested that this was unsatisfactory as previously he had written to the Interception of Communications Commissioner and had not received a response. Accordingly, we have now drafted government Amendment 193, which places a duty on the IPC to respond to the ISC with his or her decision on whether or not he or she is going to undertake any work on the issue that the ISC has referred. I hope that the Committee will welcome this proposed change. I beg to move.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
I rise to speak to Amendment 194 in my name. I remind the House of my membership of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Obviously, we support government Amendment 193. Our very small additional amendment suggests that there should be a further subsection which will ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee has sight of the commissioner’s findings or report, subject to the rules governing the ISC’s access to information under the Justice and Security Act 2013, to which we make reference in the amendment. This seems to us a small but sensible addition to the Government’s amendment.
The Marquess of Lothian (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the government amendment and support Amendment 194. I, too, am a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Indeed, I have to admit to having been a member of that committee for more than 10 years now.
The Government have tabled a very sensible amendment. There have been times during our investigations when we have come across issues which were really not for the committee to look at in detail but much more for the commissioners. This power for us to refer to the commissioners is a very valuable addition to the way in which we can make sure that the scrutiny of how this legislation works is done fairly and on a broad basis.
I support Amendment 194 because it is the additional element to what the Government are proposing, and makes total sense. For the committee to refer something to the commissioner yet not be able to hear the result of that investigation after it has been carried out does not seem very sensible. Indeed, as many of these issues will arise in the process of the committee investigating rather broader, more strategic interests, while needing to know the result of the commissioner’s investigation, it really would make logical sense to accept the addition made by Amendment 194.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we, too, very much welcome the Government’s amendment but we also support Amendment 194, for the reasons outlined by noble Lords. Surely, if there is an investigation, the committee deserves to know the result of that investigation as well.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I also support the two amendments in this group, the first from the Government and the second on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The amendments are very sensible. It does not seem to me at all right that the IPC should not say why an investigation should not be pursued.
Let me say very briefly how important it is that the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee is acknowledged in this House as part of this Bill. Indeed, scattered throughout the Bill and the Joint Committee’s report on the Bill are references to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I had the great privilege of chairing that committee for about two years and I believe that, since then, there has been enormous change in its powers and its membership—we have two distinguished members here today. That is so important to give confidence, not just to Members of this House and the House of Commons but to the public in general, that whatever happens—and which cannot be revealed, inevitably, because of the nature of this business—there is a committee of Parliament charged, as it is, with a highly distinguished membership, a very eminent chair and an expert staff. It is so important that that is recognised and that the Government support the amendment from the ISC.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As has been said, government Amendment 193 places a statutory duty on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to inform the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament of his or her decision as to whether to carry out an investigation, inspection or audit in cases where the Intelligence and Security Committee has referred a matter to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner with a view to the commissioner carrying out such an investigation, inspection or audit. Amendment 194, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, is very similar to the government amendment, except it also requires the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to provide the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament with the outcome of any investigation, inspection or audit carried out under the terms of the government amendment. I do not know whether the Government are going to accept Amendment 194—we shall find out shortly—or, alternatively, give reasons why it is not acceptable. They may simply say that this will happen anyway and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
However, I have one other, I think very minor, point to raise. I accept before I start that it may display a degree of confusion about another part of the Bill. Clause 206(1) enables the Prime Minister to give direction to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, provided that it,
“does not apply in relation to anything which is required to be kept under review by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner under section 205”.
Clause 206(3) states that:
“The Prime Minister may give a direction under this section at the request of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament”.
Where the direction under subsection (3) has been given by the Prime Minister to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner at the request of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, will the terms of government Amendment 193 and Amendment 194, if accepted, apply in respect of the commissioner informing the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament of his or her decision and the outcome of any investigation, inspection or audit? If not, why not?
Earl Howe
My Lords, let me start my response to the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, by endorsing the point ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and paying tribute to the work that the ISC does. Its members have proven themselves adept at holding the security and intelligence agencies to account and they are more than capable, I believe, of investigating any issue that falls within their remit.
It is conceivable, however, that the ISC may uncover an issue that merits further investigation but which is outside its remit to investigate. In those instances, it is right that the committee can refer the issue to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who can then decide whether to investigate further. It is also right that, having referred the issue, the ISC is then informed about the commissioner’s decision on whether to take further action. That is what the Government’s amendment seeks to achieve and I am glad that it has found favour with the committee.
The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, would go further than that and mean that the commissioner must then report to the ISC the result of the investigation. I find that difficult to accept for two reasons. First, the IPC should report solely to the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for our national security and therefore best placed to take any national security decisions that arise as a result of the reports. Secondly, if an issue has been referred to the IPC because it is outside the remit of the ISC, it does not necessarily follow that the ISC should see the result of that investigation.
It is worth focusing for a second on how things work in the real world. I am sure that, in practice, the IPC and the ISC will strike up a sensible and solid working relationship and keep each other informed of their work. But we do not have to provide for that in statute. On that basis, and in the light of the government amendment, which achieves almost all of what is intended by the ISC, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, will feel able not to press the amendment.
Let me address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which is not a trivial point. Prime ministerial direction would come into play in a scenario in which, upon request of the ISC, the IPC declined to investigate further in the area suggested. In that situation, the ISC could progress the matter by asking the Prime Minister to direct the commissioner to undertake an investigation. That is provided for by Clause 206(3).
I do not think it is appropriate for this Bill to provide a mechanism whereby the IPC has to report in a certain fashion. We have to be a little careful here to ensure that the IPC is not seen as an arm of the Intelligence and Security Committee—it is not. However, there is a memorandum of understanding between the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Prime Minister. I understand that that memorandum of understanding will come up for review in the reasonably near future. I suggest that, at that time, if it is thought appropriate, the MoU could provide a vehicle to offer some further reassurance in the area that the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, is seeking.
I recognise the issue that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin. As I said, I think that in the real world it will be a non-issue. However, if there is concern in this area, perhaps I can send a signal to those involved that, when the MoU is further considered, this issue will also be factored in.
Lord Janvrin
I too share the view that the Minister has expressed: I can imagine, and I sincerely hope, that in the real world there will be the closest possible working relationship between the IPC and the ISC. I take entirely the point that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner reports to the Prime Minister. However, the point we are trying to make is that where the ISC is involved in looking at an issue and has seen an area that it thinks is for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to look at, and that has been accepted as is provided for in Amendment 193, some kind of reference back seems common sense and what the committee needs. However, given the point made by the Minister about the MoU, I will not press this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Paddick and myself, I shall speak to this amendment and to Amendment 194DA.
The first amendment provides that the Secretary of State should provide “funds to cover” the hiring of staff, the arrangement of facilities and so on for the judicial commissioners. The amendment simply probes whether the appointment of staff—indeed, the hiring and firing of staff—is a matter for the Secretary of State or for the IPC. I would be grateful if the Minister will help me on how—in the real world, which has just been referred to—that will be dealt with.
Amendment 194DA provides for a new clause—although it is not so very new—to create a role in this for the president of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. RIPA provides for the Secretary of State to pay members and expenses—remuneration, allowances and so on—with the approval of the Treasury. I have not sought to delete the Treasury’s control—I am realistic to that extent—but wanted to add a role for the president. Should expenses, for example, be a matter for the Secretary of State? I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, it is quite important that we get this right. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, will remember, one of the commissioners under the previous arrangements was found by the ISC to have been hopelessly inadequately provided with staff, to such an extent that there was a huge build-up of correspondence. That was some years ago and it took some effort by Members of our party as well as of his to ensure that that was quickly remedied.
I also have experience as a constituency Member of Parliament in dealing with an employee issue, the merits of which I will certainly not go into but which was not helped by its being unclear who the employer was. I am talking about somebody who was engaged in the office of one of the commissioners. So I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to make sure that we get this bit right.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I turn first to Amendment 194ZA, regarding the provision of funds to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has referred to this as a probing amendment.
I entirely agree with what this amendment seeks to achieve. The Investigatory Powers Commissioner must be free to appoint whomever he or she thinks is right and proper and to arrange their office as they see fit. It is certainly true with the current independent commissioners that, although they receive their funding from the Secretary of State, they are free to employ whomever they think best suited for any role they have to fill.
It has always been the intention under the Bill that the commissioner should appoint whom they wish. However, I would not want to accept this amendment as drafted since it may preclude the Secretary of State providing non-monetary assistance to the IPC. I will consider further whether anything more should be done to put beyond doubt that the commissioner will have autonomy over the appointment of staff, but I hope I have made the intention absolutely clear in response to the request from the noble Baroness. On that basis, I invite her to withdraw the amendment.
On Amendment 194DA, it is certainly the case in practice that the president of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is consulted before the budget allocated to the tribunal is settled. The tribunal then has sole responsibility for paying the salaries and expenses of the tribunal. This is a sensible way of doing things and ensures that the tribunal has sufficient funds to conduct its business. I see no reason for changing this practice.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I had no idea that I had read my noble friend’s mind—there was no communication between us on this. The noble and learned Lord’s last comment, about there never having been a problem, was perhaps anticipated by my noble friend. The tribunal is to be independent of the Home Office. There is, of course, a link between these issues and that independence. Indeed, I believe the Home Office is keen to present the tribunal as independent. The issue that my noble friend raised about who employs the commissioners is clearly important.
Autonomy for the IPC is important. As ever, as one stands up to move an amendment, one thinks, “I could have drafted that slightly differently”, as the Minister himself has pointed out. This all might sound like minor stuff but, in practice, it is probably quite important. Of course, I am not going to pursue these matters today and will ask to withdraw the amendment, but perhaps more has come out of this than I expected. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser
Clause 214(1) provides that the Secretary of State may by regulations modify the functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or any other judicial commissioner, subject to the constraint in subsection (2). On the face of it, that is a fairly wide-ranging power and it would be helpful if the Minister could say what functions of the IPC the Government think that they might need to modify by regulations, and whether that would include a diminution in the role and responsibilities of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or any other judicial commissioner.
One could surely argue that the functions of the commissioner or of any other judicial commissioner should be set out in primary legislation and modified only through primary legislation, particularly where it reduces their role and responsibilities. What modifications of the functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or of any other judicial commissioner, subject to the provision of Clause 214(2), would the Government think it inappropriate to deal with by regulations under Clause 214?
Our amendments seek to remove the power to modify by regulations by amending Clause 214(1) to say that the Secretary of State can by regulations only,
“extend and augment the oversight”,
functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or any other judicial commissioner, and only in order that those functions should be able to keep up with technological or other developments. This would also appear to have some relevance to the recommendation in the Anderson Report of the Bulk Powers Review that a technology advisory panel should be established to advise the Secretary of State and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
We also have an issue in this group in relation to Clause 242 standing part of the Bill. The reason is that in its report published on 8 July of this year, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised a number of concerns about the powers conferred on the Secretary of State under Clause 242 to make such consequential provision as she considers appropriate by regulations, with this power being able to be exercised by amending or otherwise modifying the provisions of primary or subordinate legislation, including future enactments. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also considered the powers conferred by paragraph 33 of Schedule 8 to be inappropriate to the extent that they permit amendment by regulations of future enactments passed or made after the current Session, as well as amendments to Schedule 8 itself.
There are other amendments in this group relating to the concerns and views expressed by the DPRR committee on the Bill, of which I am sure the Government are aware. I will therefore not go into further detail on this score but instead simply ask the Minister to say what action the Government intend to take in the light of that committee’s report.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have Amendments 194CC to 194CE, 238A and 238B, 240A and 240B, and 242A in this group. First, of course, there are the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The first of these is very similar to Amendment 194C, which we debated before the Recess, and which would have replaced the word “modify” with “extend or augment”. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would do the same, except that it says,
“extend and augment the oversight”.
The Minister’s reply on the third day of Committee referred the Committee to the affirmative regulations which would be required and to the scrutiny involved. I am often not convinced by an argument that secondary legislation provides adequate scrutiny regarding the protection that might be given. I will probably never be wholly convinced about this as a mechanism until there is a mechanism to amend secondary legislation. I dare say that the response will be the same; if it is not, that will be interesting in itself.
On Amendment 194CB, I do not think that I would want to limit the modification which is the subject of this to keeping up with technical developments. There could be some other reasons if it is found that the powers are not quite spot on. But this is certainly an area of concern.
Amendments 194CC to 194CE deal with Schedule 7, which relates to codes of practice. I have already expressed some reservations about them. The first of the amendments would add to the procedural requirements that the Secretary of State must consult on a draft code as well as consider representations on it. The Minister may say that the Secretary of State will have to consult because she cannot consider representations without consulting. I am not quite sure whether that would be a logical or complete answer, but assuming that the Secretary of State will be expected to consult, we should say so.
Two other amendments concern the terms “taking into account” and “having regard to”. I realise that we discussed the hierarchy between these terms—if there is any—on a previous day, so I apologise to the Committee. I think that the answer was that it would be inelegant not to use different terms in the clause, which would otherwise suffer from very clunky wording.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to our other amendments, which indeed come from the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I am extremely grateful to the Public Bill Office and in particular to Nicole Mason, with whom I had some quite long discussions and email exchanges as I tried to get to drafting that would pick up the points made by that committee. This is what these amendments seek to do. The noble Lord referred to the concern about a power to amend future enactments—not only those later in the same Session as the Bill, which would be understandable, but whenever they are made.
The committee also quoted a paragraph from the memorandum on delegated powers, which advised the House that,
“this potentially wide power is constrained by the requirement”,
on the Secretary of State to consider,
“the provision to be appropriate in consequence of this Act. Accordingly, the power is effectively time limited”.
The committee said that it found this paragraph difficult to understand—and so did I. It also said that it is not convinced that it is necessarily right. Its recommendation was that,
“the powers conferred by clause 242(2) and (3) are inappropriate to the extent that they permit amendment of future enactments passed or made after the current Session”.
Earl Howe
My Lords, let me turn first to Amendments 194CA and 194CB in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which deal with Clause 214.
Clause 214 allows a Secretary of State to modify the functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner or other judicial commissioners. This will allow the functions of the judicial commissioners to be extended, but also to be changed to reflect any potential changes to the investigatory powers that the commissioners oversee. The judicial commissioners will oversee the use of a wide range of powers, including some in other enactments. Those powers may in due course be changed or updated, perhaps in the same way that this Bill is replacing parts of RIPA. In such a case, it is right that the functions of the judicial commissioners could be modified to reflect the changes. However, this may not mean an extension of the judicial commissioners’ oversight. The change may be entirely neutral—for example, a public authority changing its name or something of that sort. If these amendments were accepted, such a sensible change would not be possible.
I hope I can reassure noble Lords that this power will not be used to reduce the oversight provided by the commissioners. The Government have been very clear on this point. It is also worth reminding the Committee that this power is subject to the affirmative procedure and that Parliament will have to approve any regulations made under this clause. So any attempt to diminish the commissioner’s oversight responsibilities, were such an attempt to be made, would no doubt be scrutinised extremely carefully by each House of Parliament, particularly in the light of the assurance that I have just given.
The Committee will recall that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed a concern about the breadth of the order-making power, as was made clear by noble Lords. It recommended that it should not extend to the IPC’s functions relating to the authorisation of warrants. The Government accepted this recommendation, and this clause has been amended accordingly.
Amendments 194CC, 194CD and 194CE deal with changes to Schedule 7. Amendment 194CC would require the Secretary of State to consult persons interested in a code of practice before issuing such a code. This amendment is unnecessary as the clause as drafted provides for the publication of codes in draft and for the Secretary of State to consider representations on the draft codes. In order for the Secretary of State to hear representations on the code, the Bill requires a consultation to be conducted.
I understand that Amendments 194CD and 194CE are intended to probe whether the use of “have regard to” or “take into account” strengthens or weakens the effect of the consideration of a failure to comply with a code conducted by a supervisory authority or a court or tribunal. Having taken advice on the matter, I can assure your Lordships that the choice of language is based on the context and it is appropriate to refer to a court or an oversight body taking matters into account. However, that form of words does not provide any greater or lesser degree of consideration.
Amendments 238A, 238B, 240A, 240B and 242A I believe respond to the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on this Bill of 8 July 2016. These amendments relate to the parliamentary procedure used where primary legislation is modified and to the power to make consequential amendments not being time-limited in relation to Clause 242(2) and Clause 242(3).
The proposed amendments to Clause 238 seek to ensure that whenever a delegated legislative power is used to modify primary legislation the affirmative procedure should apply. This is a point which has been raised by the committee in the context of a number of Bills, and I am afraid that it is one that the Government cannot accept. Where secondary legislation amends the text of primary legislation, the Government agree that such legislation should be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government have committed that, wherever possible, changes to primary legislation will be made by textual amendment rather than by modifying the primary legislation. There are likely to be relatively few occasions when the powers to otherwise modify primary legislation need to be exercised—I apologise for the split infinitive which the noble Baroness pointed out. However, it remains the Government’s position that there are some cases where it is necessary to modify primary legislation and that it is not possible to specify which kinds of modification of primary legislation should attract the negative procedure and which the affirmative procedure without creating legal uncertainty.
The Government have set out their position in the Delegated Powers Committee memorandum on this Bill, and in relation to a number of different Bills, and remain of the view that the position is justified and that the powers in the Bill are subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. I have in fact today written to my noble friend Lady Fookes, the chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, setting out the Government’s position and the reasons for it in response to the committee’s view on this issue and on the point raised by the committee on the power to amend Schedule 8. I will, of course, place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House. I therefore ask that these amendments be withdrawn.
The proposed amendment to Clause 242 seeks to constrain the power to make consequential amendments so that it could not be used to amend legislation passed after this Bill receives Royal Assent. Clause 242 contains the usual power to make amendments to other legislation consequential on the provisions in the Bill. However, as currently drafted, the power would permit the amendment of legislation passed at any time in the future. Amendment 242A would in fact go further than the committee’s recommendation, which recognised the necessity of amending of enactments passed or made during the current Session. I can confirm that the Government will bring forward amendments on Report which would restrict the powers conferred by Clause 242 and the similar power in Schedule 8 to the Bill in response to the committee’s recommendation.
The power to make consequential amendments to enactments passed in the same Session is necessary because other Bills before Parliament at the same time as this Bill touch upon the powers and public authorities covered by this Bill, such as, for example, the Policing and Crime Bill. Since it is impossible to predict how those Bills or the Investigatory Powers Bill may be amended during their parliamentary passage, and which Bill may achieve Royal Assent first, it is necessary to allow for the possibility of consequential amendment of future enactments.
I have just been handed a note to amplify what I said on Amendment 194CC in relation to consultation on codes of practice, and will just add that consultation comprises publication of a draft and consideration of any representations made. I suggest to the noble Baroness that publication, by its nature, is conspicuous and is the means by which government consultations are established. I hope she is satisfied on that point.
Finally, government Amendment 241, which is in this group, makes it clear that a statutory instrument containing regulations made under Clause 50(3)—the designation of relevant international agreements under which interception may be carried out—is subject to the negative parliamentary procedure. This amendment is consequential on the amendment to Part 2 which was considered in July. I hope that the House will agree to that amendment when I come to move it.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I apologise for the rather cheap gibe about the split infinitive. I recognise that I am old-fashioned, and styles have moved on. It would obviously be inappropriate to pursue the points made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee at this point, given that the Minister has written to it, and we will wait to see if anything more happens on that. However, I will just say, on the question of consultation, that the Government are often very good at being proactive in consulting and at contacting organisations which they know have an interest. That is something that should be encouraged. To my mind, consultation which simply involves publication on a website—or perhaps in common parlance, “slipping something out”—the day before a recess and waiting to see whether there are any comments is not good practice. That was why I was concerned to spell this out. I am not of course suggesting that anyone on the Front Bench at the moment would indulge in such a practice, but it has been known to happen. This is not an unnecessary point, but I will not pursue it this evening.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his response, although clearly the answer that he has given on behalf of the Government is not the one that we might have been hoping for in relation to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report and the concerns and views it has expressed. However, rather than making any more specific statements than that at this stage, I simply confine my observations to saying that I will wait and read the letter that I understand the noble Earl said was sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, which is presumably responding to the issues that have been raised. I will take the opportunity to read that letter and then decide whether to pursue the matter further or not at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Health: HIV
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to move toward the elimination of HIV infection in the United Kingdom.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I am honoured to lead this debate on what remains a profoundly important issue of public health: tackling the spread of HIV and doing so in a way that over time would allow us to eliminate the virus, which has been responsible for so many deaths and so much suffering. I thank all noble Lords for taking part.
It is just over 35 years since the first reports in the US media of an unidentified illness that seemed disproportionately to affect gay men and to kill them. What was identified as the human immunodeficiency virus, an incurable disease, left a generation of those infected facing certain death. Many more living in its shadows had their lives shaped by it. However, 35 years on we have turned the horror of HIV/AIDS from a death sentence into a manageable chronic condition through the use of antiretroviral treatment. That we can today even begin to contemplate its elimination is a tribute to many brave and visionary people. There is not time to name them all tonight but I want to make two exceptions. The first is to praise the campaigning groups, especially the National AIDS Trust and the Terrence Higgins Trust, which fought tirelessly to keep this issue on the front line of the public health agenda. The second, on this very important day for him, is to recall the vital role that our new Lord Speaker played in the earliest days of this epidemic. As Secretary of State Fowler, he showed enormous courage in tackling the issue, and in doing so saved thousands of lives. Our gratitude to him is eternal.
As we know, HIV is a massive global issue, but it also continues to be one of the fastest-growing serious health conditions here in the UK, with an estimated 6,000 new diagnoses—115 a week—and the rate of new infection is increasing. The year 2014 saw the highest ever number of men who have sex with men diagnosed with HIV. Some two-fifths of people were diagnosed late, long after they should have started treatment. One in six of those with the virus still does not know their status and, for many of the 104,000 people living with HIV, economic hardship, stigma and discrimination are all too real.
So if anything, despite the huge life-saving advances in treatment and care globally, the situation here in our own back yard, particularly with regard to testing and prevention, is deteriorating. We need to take tough and determined action to reverse the tide, and that will require a strategic approach from the Government to tackling every aspect of HIV, with the aim of eliminating the transmission of the virus in the UK and bringing its reign of terror to an end.
For the first time we have the ability to do just that because we have at our disposal the means to stop transmission. As a study published last month showed, it is nearly impossible for someone living with HIV to pass on the virus if they are undergoing effective antiretroviral therapy and have an undetectable viral load. This is of profound importance in producing a strategy for tackling HIV, as we have seen in other countries. A recent study about HIV in Denmark, from the University of California and Copenhagen University Hospital, provided the first unambiguous evidence of the link between high rates of viral suppression and falling HIV incidence. Because of the Danish policy of treatment as prevention, HIV incidence among gay men—still the group most at risk—is now so low, at 0.14% a year, that it almost meets the annual incidence rate that the World Health Organization has set as the threshold for eventually eliminating the epidemic.
There is no reason why such a remarkable success should not happen here, given that we have exactly the same tools to use. To do so, however, three things must happen. First, self-evidently, to cut transmission through the effective use of antiretrovirals, those who have the virus need to know about it and get on treatment. Far too many still do not, with devastating consequences. It is a terrible statistic that over 80% of all HIV transmissions in the UK are from the undiagnosed. We need a step change in the volume of tests that are undertaken regularly by those at greatest risk, and in access to testing. Yes, there has been much good progress and innovation—the introduction of home-testing kits, for example—but it is not enough. There should be much more routine testing of populations at risk, and more support needs to be given to GPs and primary care providers, and indeed to local authorities, to deliver it. Of course there is the continuing need for publicity to explain its importance. I pay real tribute to the extraordinary example set by His Royal Highness Prince Harry, whose live broadcast of his own HIV test has done more than anything else in recent times to raise the profile and make HIV testing the norm.
Secondly, one of the major reasons why people do not get tested is that they fear the stigma of a positive result. The 2015 People Living with HIV Stigma Index revealed a continuing problem with HIV stigma and discrimination, with too many people reporting everything from verbal harassment or physical assault to exclusion by their families. Given the crucial role of stigma in encouraging testing, there is a strong case for a public information campaign to raise awareness and tackle some of the myths that still exist. I also commend to the Government the recent NAT report Tackling HIV Stigma, which draws together international best practice.
Improving education about HIV and sexually transmitted illnesses more generally would also be of real benefit, especially as the increase in HIV incidence among young people is particularly sharp, up 70% in the last three years. It is time to look again at what is being taught about this issue, particularly as Department for Education guidance is now 16 years old. It is really important for young people to understand about HIV and to learn how to avoid it through condom use, but also to be taught the importance of being supportive of those living with HIV and not to fear or stigmatise them.
Finally, while improved testing and tackling stigma would help to identify those who have the virus and get them on treatment, the flip side of the same coin is preventing HIV by using medication to protect HIV-negative people from acquiring it. Again, we have the tools to hand in the shape of pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP. Two studies, including the PROUD trial here in the UK, show PrEP to be highly effective at preventing HIV infection in men who have sex with men. Properly taken, the success rate is well over 90%. This is a revolutionary development in the fight against HIV which can transform the public health landscape. Only this week, new statistics from San Francisco showed that it had cut its rate of new infection by a third in the past three years as a result of PrEP.
Inevitably, as PrEP is a drug linked with sex, it has become the subject of controversy and misinformation. It is argued that contracting HIV results from a lifestyle choice and that it is not appropriate for the NHS to pick up the pieces from such actions. This ignores the point that the NHS is treating, curing and preventing illnesses diagnosed from lifestyle choices all the time—cigarette smoking, overeating, overdrinking or riding a bike without a helmet—and PrEP should be no different.
The other argument, of course, is money, and it is estimated that it could cost up to £20 million each year to provide. However, that figure is dwarfed by the existing cost of HIV to the NHS. The lifetime cost of treating someone with HIV is now in the region of £380,000. As people live longer, that figure will only increase. It is Mickey Mouse economics to refuse to fund effective prevention measures for those most at risk at the cost of just £400 a month—a sum soon likely significantly to reduce—when you set that against the huge cost of treating someone who contracts HIV. If PrEP prevented just a handful of infections each year, it would easily be saving money for the NHS and the taxpayer.
Regrettably, that is now a matter before the courts, but I hope that common sense will prevail and that the original decision in the case—that there is no legal impediment to NHS England providing PrEP—will be upheld. That is vital because it is the last element in the jigsaw alongside effective treatment, more testing, tackling stigma and promoting condom use, which will allow us finally to move towards the elimination of HIV transmission, something genuinely within our grasp.
Earlier this year, the UK, as a member of the World Health Organization, committed to the goal of eliminating hepatitis C—another deadly condition—by 2030. NHS England is now working on plans to make that goal a reality through prevention, testing and treatment. We must have the same ambition for HIV. I ask my noble friend whether the Government will be as bold with HIV as they have been with hepatitis C, commit to the elimination of new transmissions by 2030 at the latest and work with NHS England on a strategy to achieve that.
Thanks to the miracles of genetic science, we now know where and when HIV began. We do not yet know when it will end, but end it must, and tonight’s debate should be a staging post on that journey. In memory of the countless millions who have died, in deep honour of those who have pioneered treatment and dispensed loving care and in solidarity with those living with the virus, let this country have the ambition to show the way in consigning the greatest public health peril of our age to the history books.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, warmest congratulations are due to my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood on securing this important and particularly timely debate. The arrival and availability of PrEP, the benefit that it can provide, is something that I hope we all support and strongly urge. Even timelier, as my noble friend pointed out, is the arrival of the first male Lord Speaker. I appreciate that we have had the most distinguished female Lord Speakers, but perhaps it is now time for a male Lord Speaker. We welcome him most warmly to the Woolsack. As my noble friend said, the noble Lord, of all people, deserves enormous credit for his pioneering and courageous campaign, “Don’t die of Ignorance”, the shocking, bold, unstoppable campaign of 1987.
My noble friend mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, but I want to mention one other person, the then Chief Medical Officer, an eminent physician and epidemiologist, Sir Donald Acheson. Uncompromising, he on the whole thought that Ministers had to be tolerated. As long as he got his way, which he was determined to do, he was happy and easy to work with, and he worked with great principle and distinction. When he first became CMO in 1983, fewer than 30 AIDS cases had been seen. By 1985, two years later, 121 people had died and 10,000 were thought to have the condition. That was the most phenomenal situation: the greatest new public health threat of the 20th century.
Following that was a model of the way in which a Government can decide that they are going on a war footing against a new condition. There was not only the great public health education campaign in the health service. In the voluntary sector, my noble friend paid tribute to the Terrence Higgins Trust and the National AIDS Trust, but there was also London Lighthouse, Mildmay and Landmark. It was extraordinary how the voluntary sector mobilised, rather in the way that all the children’s charities mobilised at the end of the 19th century, holding the Government to account in every area, even in the Diplomatic Service.
I took over at the Department of Health, only being half the man of the Lord Speaker, because he manfully was able to handle both the enormous Department of Health and the then Department of Social Security, now the Department for Work and Pensions. No mere mortal Secretary of State has been able to handle those two enormous responsibilities since then, but he did so with great distinction, so perhaps he will be the man to handle our colleagues’ business here. At the time, there was a real problem internationally because in many African countries, acknowledging the development of HIV and AIDS was thought to be a threat to the tourism industry. I remember going to the World AIDS Conference in Paris in 1990, when the British ambassador to France was proud in his red ribbon, which I think his mother would have been amazed to see him wear. There was a campaign to try to persuade the Russians to accept that HIV/AIDS was a serious problem in Russia. All of us in our different times have had different campaigns to handle this real threat to the human race which so extraordinarily, through the work of our scientists and the pharmaceutical industry, has become a manageable chronic condition, if only it can be identified, diagnosed and treated.
I confess to a tension I held in my term of office, because there was resistance to testing when there was no available cure or treatment. I found it very difficult because, without going into too much detail, any women in the House who have had a baby will know that you are tested for all sorts of different things without any counselling or consent; that is what we are told we have to do. Nevertheless, at the time it was felt that people should not be forced to have assessment or treatment, even if they were going into hospital for a major operation, without counselling.
I tracked down where the source of all that lay and then declared war in the most joyful way on the insurance industry. The ABI used to weight people on their insurance if they had had an HIV test. It did not matter whether the test was negative—the fact that they had been tested meant that they were high risk and therefore should pay the penalty on their insurance premium. Prince Harry would then have been a wonderful example which one could have used. I fear that I was just rather aggressive, insistent and disagreeable, but I am delighted to say that since 1994, ABI policies have been absolutely clear that a negative test is not a barrier to obtaining insurance. All the way through, we see stigma, resistance and obstacles. Together we can unite and work to overcome these many barriers and improve diagnosis and treatment.
There is no doubt that that early campaign was a model which many of us felt proud of internationally. My noble friend has pointed out that we now have more to learn from other parts of the world which are developing their services and approach faster than us, but it remains the case that, as a percentage of the population, France, Spain and Italy each have twice as many people living with HIV as we do in the UK. As my noble friend said, HIV has been responsible for the deaths of over 35 million people worldwide, including 1.1 million in 2015 alone. There is still a long way to go. The WHO reported in 2015 that there were approximately 26.7 million people living with HIV worldwide. In South Africa, Zimbabwe and Uganda, 19%, 14.9% and 7.1% respectively of the adult population is living with HIV. In the UK, it is 0.3% and in the US 0.6%, but any percentage, any number, is something we cannot tolerate without greater effort.
The UN sustainable development goals, established in 2015 to end poverty and fight inequality and injustice, include the commitment to end the epidemic of AIDS by 2030. UNAIDS has set interim targets for 2020 which have been agreed by political declaration by UN members, including the UK. This goes back to the part we can play internationally as well as nationally. Noble Lords may feel that the international is not part of the debate today, but in this extraordinarily permeable world, with mass migration, there is no such thing as looking at the situation in the UK without having regard to the international situation, such is the movement of people. Whatever the outcome of Brexit may be, I doubt we will bring an end to the mass migration of populations.
As my noble friend has pointed out, we are not doing well enough because we are still finding that one in 6 of those 100,000 people living with HIV in the UK now is unaware of it. Only 82% of those with HIV know that they have the condition. If a person is diagnosed a long time after they have been infected with HIV, it is more likely that the virus will already have seriously damaged their immune system. Late diagnosis is a huge contributing factor to illness and death for people with HIV and, if an individual is unaware of the situation, to further transmission. In 2014 it was estimated that 40% of the adults in the UK—
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but she will be aware that this is a time-limited debate. The guide time has been increased to eight minutes but I hope she will be seeking to conclude quite quickly.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone
I apologise to the House; such is my enthusiasm to support my noble friend in his excellent work. I had another 40 minutes of speech here, but I will now bring it to an end and simply commend my noble friend and our most distinguished Lord Speaker. I hope to support them in every way that I can.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Bottomley, who is as enthusiastic today as she was when she held office, with such distinction, as Secretary of State for Health.
In the last few years, the House has become accustomed to returning, from time to time, to this grave public health issue. So often the impetus has come from the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, an unwavering friend to all of us, regardless of party, who believe strongly that, though very significant progress has been made, not least as a result of his courageous work in the 1980s, much remains to be done. Above all, the country at large needs to be made aware that the disappearance of stories of heart-rending agony from the front pages of our newspapers does not mean that a great crisis has been almost entirely resolved and that the political agenda no longer needs to make much provision for it. As we have heard, HIV continues to spread rapidly. Public opinion requires a wake-up call. In these circumstances, it surely must be right for us to press the Government to commit themselves firmly to the objective of eliminating this terrible scourge.
My noble friend Lord Black, a close personal friend for exactly 30 years, has performed a signal service by securing this most timely debate. Concerns about the prospects of steady further progress are accumulating to such an extent that serious anxiety now exists among the valiant organisations that work so hard on behalf of actual and potential HIV sufferers. Wide publicity has been given to one of the principal concerns, the delay in introducing a miraculous new drug. It is tragic that protracted action in the courts should have become necessary. It is tragic, too, that some have sought to create tensions between those dedicated to the relief of HIV and others suffering grave hardship from other sources. As my favourite Times columnist, Janice Turner, put it recently, at its heart, the PrEP controversy shows where tolerance of gay lives ends.
I will touch briefly on another of the many sources of concern. It is becoming evident that, as a result of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the provision of HIV and other sexual health services is in danger of becoming seriously fragmented. The crux of the problem seems to be that the division of commissioning responsibilities between NHS England, clinical commissioning groups and local authorities is confusing and unclear. The damaging implications have been the focus of a detailed inquiry by the All-Party Group on HIV and AIDS. Its report will be published shortly. In the light of it, the Government will surely need to consider how they can ensure that HIV prevention and testing are not set back, particularly at a time of falling local authority budgets. They will also need to clarify where the responsibility for commissioning HIV support services actually rests.
Finally, I will say a word about Northern Ireland, for this debate relates to the whole United Kingdom. I have always been particularly interested in all that happens there, including during the time that my noble friend Lord Prior’s father was its deeply committed Secretary of State, more than 30 years ago. The greatest concern of Positive Life, Northern Ireland’s only HIV-specific charity, is the heavy stigma that still attaches to HIV in the Province. It is pressing for investment in education and the raising of greater awareness in both schools and the wider community. It states:
“There has been little communication with the public since the 1980s and a recent public health advertising campaign did little to address the misinformation and myths that surround the condition”.
There could be no more telling reminder of the continuing need to combat prejudice wherever it arises, a point made repeatedly by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and emphasised in his book AIDS: Don’t Die of Prejudice. Policy in Northern Ireland is, of course, determined at Stormont, but its leaders must always be able to look to the Government here for an unwavering, resolute approach to combating HIV and for encouragement to emulate it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, for this timely and important debate. I personally believe that the good work that has happened with HIV prevention and treatment in the UK is now at a crossroads because of public policy. That may not be intentional, but we are at a crossroads. It is going to need political leadership—not the courts—to deal with the increasing number of HIV infections happening in the UK. I shall come back to that in a moment.
It is very nice to see our new Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his place. His voice has been not just important but critical in the fight against HIV, not just in the UK but across the world, and many thousands and millions of people owe him personal gratitude for the work that he has done.
I am not going to concentrate significantly on the key issues already raised about education, access to testing, treatment and stigma—although I shall come back to the point about stigma. I will major on one issue—that of PrEP, a treatment to stop the replication and transmission of HIV within the UK. It is a treatment widely available in France, the United States, Israel and Kenya, and other countries are using it. It is a treatment that Public Health England modelled: if PrEP were widely available to high-risk groups, particularly men who have sex with men, it could prevent 7,400 cases by 2020.
Noble Lords have already referred to the PROUD study, which showed that the treatment is 86% effective in preventing HIV transmission, and also to the cost. The noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, made it very clear that the lifetime cost of treating somebody with HIV is up to £380,000; the cost of PrEP is £400 a month. That is the equivalent of 83 years’ worth of PrEP to treat one person living with HIV. The economics are not questionable in terms of the costs of PrEP.
So how have we got to the position whereby two parts of government are slugging it out in court over who is going to pay for this preventive treatment? Interestingly, as I am sure the Minister is aware, both parts of government are funded by the Department of Health. Local government’s prevention is funded by the Department of Health, as is NHS England. In July, I asked House of Lords Question 1425—what stops the Secretary of State intervening and asking the Department of Health to commission PrEP? I got a very nice Answer about NICE, but I did not get the answer to my Question. So I will ask the Minister: what legislation stops the Secretary of State tonight telling NHS England that it can commission PrEP? What law stops that? The advice given to NHS England made it very clear that that could actually happen, so I am interested to know why it does not happen, particularly when the NHS national plan puts prevention at the heart of future health care. The whole argument about why NHS England cannot provide PrEP is that it is a prevention measure. If the whole NHS five-year plan is about prevention, why cannot the NHS step up to do this?
There is a lack of political leadership on this issue. It is not a lack of managerial leadership, although there may be with NHS England. There is a lack of direction from the centre to say that PrEP is so important, as the studies have shown, that it should be commissioned by NHS England. I declare an interest in that my partner works for NHS England in specialised commissioning. The work does not have anything to do with this area, but it is an interest that needs to be on the record.
Political leadership is needed because NHS England is taking a particularly aggressive and nasty approach on PrEP and in the arguments for why it cannot be used. A statement by Dr Jonathan Fielden on 2 August, on the day of the judgment—he is the deputy medical director of NHS England and the director of specialised commissioning—was at best unfortunate and at worst showed institutionalised homophobic language by NHS England. I do not use those words simply for effect. I shall read out what the statement said, because it was highly emotive and highly charged and used language that I do not think is worthy of a senior doctor of this country. He said that PrEP is,
“to prevent HIV transmission, particularly for men who have high risk condomless sex with multiple male partners”.
He went on to compare it with not being able to afford treatment for children with cystic fibrosis or children who do not have limbs.
That is clearly an attempt to put it into the public mind that there are deserving and non-deserving people with regard to specialised commissioning, which is not the kind of approach or language we would expect from our National Health Service. As a number of noble Lords have said, it creates a stigma. It is not acceptable for a senior doctor in the commissioning part of one of our national treasures—the National Health Service—to use that kind of language about deserving or non-deserving people. Does the Minister agree with the sentiment or tone of that press release? If not, will he say exactly why he disagrees with what the deputy medical director of NHS England said?
Finally, I will turn to the pharmaceutical company manufacturing the drug Truvada, which is the PrEP drug of choice in the UK. It is clearly about to come off patent, so what discussions have the Government had to reduce the cost? One issue is to do with cost—that NHS England or local government cannot afford the drug. As someone who has been a council leader and is still a councillor, on the issue of local authorities buying the drug, I can go to any sexual health clinic in the country and be anonymous and get PrEP as a preventive measure. If it was down to one local authority to give way on this, everyone would go there, but if it is a national preventive service that we are trying to provide, only one organisation can provide it—the National Health Service. That is why it is important that NHS England is asked to look more seriously and urgently at providing PrEP as part of its National Health Service provision.
I hope that the Government will discuss these matters with the pharmaceutical industry, and in particular with the company promoting the drug, to reduce costs. That way, even if it were to go through NICE, the cost-effectiveness question would be unanswerable.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on securing this debate on an incredibly important subject. It is particularly important for me, personally, because just over 23 years ago my parents, my two sisters and I lost my older brother to AIDS. He had contracted HIV some seven years previously, at a time when the whole treatment of HIV and AIDS was at an early stage. I often reflect, as I think of him, that had he contracted HIV even five years later he might very well still be with us today. One thing to celebrate in this otherwise quite gloomy story is that medical advances have meant that HIV is not today the death sentence that it was for my brother Charles but a chronic condition that can be managed successfully.
It is a pleasure to see a new Lord Speaker on the Woolsack and to recall and celebrate what he did at that time in the mid-1980s, in leading that brave campaign of public information on the transmission of HIV. I had a very minor walk-on part as the very young Whip attached to the DHSS, and was in a number of those meetings, although I was not privy to any meetings that the Lord Speaker would have had with the Prime Minister at the time. However, given that the then Prime Minister was a scientist, I like to think that she would have been readily persuaded of the need for urgent action on this issue. At that stage a huge stigma was attached to this condition which undoubtedly deterred many from going through a test. My noble friend Lady Bottomley talked about the action of the ABI and insurance companies, which certainly deterred people from having tests which they would otherwise have done. The role that the current Lord Speaker played at that time is of historic importance and one of which he should be enormously proud.
I wish to make one or two reflections on the points made by other speakers in this important debate. My noble friend Lord Black is completely right: you cannot separate treatment and prevention. In the case of HIV they are very closely linked. We know that the more effective the treatment given to HIV-positive people, the less the condition will spread. There is a huge premium on people with HIV being given effective treatments that are easier for them to take and keep on taking, resulting in the viral load being lowered and therefore lessening transmission. Obviously, the more effective the prevention, the less the need for treatment. We have to think of prevention and treatment not as separate things but the same.
I also have one or two reflections on the vexed issue of PrEP, about which other noble Lords have spoken. I urge my noble friend the Minister to take back to the department the concern of many in this House that this is not a good way for the Government to proceed. We are told that the cost of making PrEP available is some £20 million a year. After the lawyers have had their cut from protracted legal action and several appeals, I doubt whether there would be much change from £20 million. We know for sure that the cost of people becoming infected with HIV is huge, protracted and continuing. Given the way in which our Government operate, we have very much a silo approach to government. This is not a feature of the current Government but goes back to the middle of the 19th century. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, there is an argument between two different bits of government in this regard but in this case local government is the agent of central government. This is not even a case of different pockets within the taxpayers’ disbursement. The reality is that we are talking about taxpayers’ pounds and they need to be used in the best way possible.
As people live longer, a key factor in the success of our society will be how good we are at keeping people well and living independently at home. As we live longer, more people will live with chronic illnesses. The cost of people being sick and needing active treatment, particularly hospital treatment, is borne not just by the health service as social care costs are involved. As people’s working lives are extended—as they certainly will be—costs will arise from the loss of tax revenues when they are sick. There are additional costs arising from welfare support for carers. These costs are disbursed in different pockets of taxpayers’ funds but also over time. Government is not well equipped to understand or harvest the benefits of savings that will accrue later if we spend modest amounts of money now.
We still suffer from the use of analogue structures. I noticed that Nick Clegg, the former Deputy Prime Minister, was quoted in a newspaper this morning as saying how frustrated he was when he was Deputy Prime Minister to discover that we used analogue structures in the processes of decision-taking that were ill equipped to deal with the pressures and tempo of the digital age. I completely understand and sympathise with that frustration. However, more important in this context is the analogue structure, the model deriving from the mid-19th century, as I say, with a theology of departmental sovereignty that is intolerant of central decision-taking and which makes it unbelievably hard to justify relatively modest expenditure in one part of the state apparatus because the consequential savings are disbursed over many different budgets—in this case both the costs and revenue losses of central government, the cost to the NHS and the cost to local government. We need to find better ways of doing this. I hope that in some way the debate my noble friend has initiated on this subject will help us to make progress towards that.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for initiating this debate. I agree with him and the noble Lord, Lord Maude, that prevention, testing and treatment are part of the same healthcare, which needs to be joined up. We are talking today about prevention, particularly the use of PrEP, the pre-exposure anti-viral treatment to reduce the incidence of HIV. This debate is about the elimination of HIV. We now have the possibility to do that. However, we will fail to do so if we do not address this issue urgently.
Reducing the incidence of and eliminating HIV requires biomedical, behavioural and structural intervention. However, we also have to adopt any new treatments or preventive treatments that come along. I was interested to read what the Health Committee had to say about our public health strategy in its recent report, published last week:
“We welcome the focus on public health but recognise that reducing health inequality will also need to address the wider determinants of health, such as … the environment. This will require cross-Government working. We recommend that a Cabinet Office minister be given specific responsibility … at national level”.
Will the Minister comment on what the Health Committee said? It also said:
“Local authorities face a number of challenges and have had to cope rapidly with major system change. In addition they face real terms cuts … of £200 million … Cuts to public health and the services they deliver are a false economy as they not only add to the future costs of health and social care”,
as exemplified by the cost of treating a patient with HIV as opposed to the cost of prevention, as many others have mentioned.
The committee goes on to say:
“Commissioning for certain services is divided between different bodies, creating the potential for confusion and fragmentation. Where … progress on resolving them is in the best interests of patients and the public. Sexual health provides a clear example of such fragmentation”.
The committee refers to the,
“responsibility for and funding of preexposure prophylaxis, PrEP, for HIV”,
as many other noble Lords have mentioned.
I come back to why PrEP is so important. Others have mentioned the evidence that is now public in two studies, one conducted by PROUD and the other by Ipergay. They both found that PrEP was 86% effective, as has already been mentioned—that is, it stopped 17 out of every 20 HIV infections. They tested different ways of taking PrEP. In the case of the PROUD study, it was a daily dosage. In the Ipergay study it was an intermittent dosage. Despite that, both ways of taking PrEP are effective, so it does not have to be taken daily. Studies with heterosexual men and women equally show that PrEP works well in people who are able to take it consistently. For example, an African study showed that it was 75% effective—that is, it stopped 15 out of 20 HIV infections that would have occurred without PrEP.
PrEP is needed if HIV infections are to start going down in the UK and even to be eliminated, especially in gay men. It is estimated that 2,800 gay men in the UK acquired HIV in 2014—about eight gay men got HIV every day. PrEP is necessary in England because while condoms, testing and treating HIV-positive people are just about containing the HIV epidemic at its current level, infections in gay men are not decreasing, and more and more gay men are living with HIV every year. PrEP will save money, as has already been mentioned, because the cost of treating HIV patients is so high compared to prescribing.
I will also address some of the other issues that have come out in the debate on who pays: NHS England or the local authorities. Instead of having a debate about who pays, we have got confused about the clinical efficacy of PrEP. Absolutely convincing, good studies show that it is highly effective, so that should not cloud judgment about who pays. Concerns have been expressed that it could lead to other unintended consequences; for example, what about condoms and PrEP? There is little evidence that providing PrEP will result in big changes in condom use. People who use condoms carry on using them. People who do not use them, particularly gay men having sex with other men, need to be targeted. Another concern was about other sexually transmitted infections—none of which, by the way, are as serious as HIV. There is little sign that PrEP causes rises in other STIs.
Side-effects were also mentioned, but PrEP rarely causes them. Clinical resistance to the drug was another issue, but there is no evidence that PrEP will lead to many more cases of HIV drug resistance. The cost-effectiveness models have already been mentioned but, in the studies conducted, other, different cost-effectiveness models were used, and all of them were found to be effective.
The bottom line is: given to gay men at high risk of HIV, PrEP will be cost effective or could even start saving money now, especially if it is as effective as it was in the PROUD study and if at least a proportion of users take it intermittently. Even taken intermittently, it is effective. Therefore, there is no reason why we should not introduce this now. The argument about who pays needs to stop. The same taxpayer pays at the end of the day. The only issue is who tells whom to start introducing this treatment. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, on introducing this important debate, and at a particularly serendipitous moment—the very first day of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, as Lord Speaker. I join with noble Lords who have expressed their admiration for his vision and energy. Not many of us in this House can say that we have saved hundreds, if not thousands of lives; the Lord Speaker did.
One of the subsidiary UN sustainable development goals is to end the epidemic of AIDS—by which is meant HIV—by 2030. UNAIDS has set interim targets for 2020 which have been agreed by UN members, including the UK. Individual nations are expected to develop a national strategy for HIV. However, England has not had one since 2010, which is what we have been exploring in this evening’s debate. Therefore, my first question for the Minister is: why not? We have the tools now. How sad it is to think, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Maude, who lost his dear brother many years ago in the early days of HIV infection, that if the tools we have today had been available then, many of us would not have lost close family members and close friends. I too lost a dear friend years ago, in the early days, and I still mourn and remember what a lovely person he was and feel so sad that it happened at a time when research was in its early stages. As we have heard, part of the problem is that although we do quite well on treatment, we are falling behind on diagnosis. Thousands of people have undiagnosed HIV, which means they will pass it on without knowing it. They will also develop associated conditions for which proper treatment will be difficult because of the undiagnosed HIV.
Since April 2013, prevention of ill health generally has been funded from the ring-fenced public health budgets of local authorities. But while NHS funding has been protected, public health has been subject, as we have heard, to repeated government cuts—£200 million in one year—which I and others have lamented in the House many times. We are also told that there will be further cuts of 3.9% a year over the next five years. Government proposals to abandon the ring fence or even fund public health through business rates could further lessen the funds available for this work.
HIV prevention funding is already inadequate to meet changing needs and behaviours and is a fraction of what it was 15 years ago. It is also 55 times less than the amount spent on HIV treatment. In this situation a more effective and widely available prevention strategy is needed. If we can have a strategy on hepatitis C, why can we not have one on HIV? HIV prevention needs a strategy because it requires a combination approach, including traditional forms of outreach, sexual health counselling, condom schemes, harm reduction and of course—I say this particularly because the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, is not able to be with us this evening, and she and I share an interest in this—good sex education in schools, with frank discussion of the risks and of how young people can protect themselves. That is what is needed. Information is power when it comes to health, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, proved in his campaign many years ago.
Most HIV sufferers are very responsible about their condition. However, the majority of onward transmissions occur when the transmitter is not aware that he or she has AIDS. The majority of those already diagnosed are in treatment and, since treatment reduces viral load to the point where transmission is almost impossible, new cases are not coming from there; they are coming from people who do not know that they have the disease. Therefore, better diagnosis is essential in defeating the epidemic.
Why, then, when the number of diagnoses is rising, does the NHS refuse to make use of or fund PrEP—the most effective preventive treatment yet devised, as we have heard very clearly—and then appeal the decision of the High Court? I find it very difficult to understand why the NHS wants to spend its money on lawyers instead of treatments. We have to balance the cost of treating a patient pre-infection against the cost of treating the disease if it happens, as well as against the loss to the public purse of the talents of that person and the taxes that would be paid if he or she was fit and healthy and not suffering from HIV.
Prevention has long been at the heart of our NHS. Vaccination was one of the most beneficial discoveries of medical science and has been used over the years to save lives and to save the NHS many billions of pounds. Those of us who were war babies will remember that we had orange juice to increase our vitamin C level when we could not get citrus fruits, as well as cod liver oil to give us vitamins A and D to ensure that we did not get rickets. Programmes such as those prevented a lot of ill health and saved the NHS billions of pounds. Surely, pre-infection prophylaxis of such a dangerous disease corresponds to many of the vaccination and supplement programmes that have saved the lives of babies and children over the years.
For diagnosis to be improved, we need an effective programme of testing, as we have heard, but in 2014-15, contrary to national guidelines, 60% of high-prevalence local authorities did not commission any HIV testing outside the sexual health clinic setting. That is probably because they are so cash-strapped. Putting the financial burden of PrEP on them will not help the diagnosis rate; nor will it help them provide the support that many patients need to take their medication. On the whole, HIV medication requires a high level of adherence and some patients need support and help with that.
So we need a proper strategy, including PrEP being made available on the NHS for people in risk groups, not just for the sake of those at risk but for the sake of the many people to whom those patients might transmit the disease in the future. We must be realistic: risky behaviours happen and we have to live with that fact. Unless we protect from infection those who take part in those behaviours, we fail to protect the whole population. If the international community can help very poor African countries to eliminate a highly infectious disease such as Ebola, why cannot a wealthy country like ours eliminate HIV? We should get on and do it. We know how to do it but, as others have said, it needs leadership.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I too very much welcome the debate and the thrust of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Black, for the elimination of HIV. Like many other noble Lords, I echo the tribute that he made to organisations such as the National AIDS Trust and the Terrence Higgins Trust, as well as, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, whom it is marvellous to see in the Speaker’s chair tonight. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned Sir Donald Acheson, who was the powerful, dynamic Chief Medical Officer at the time, and it is right that we remember the role that Chief Medical Officers have played in this story over many years.
In opening his debate, the noble Lord reminded us that HIV is a global issue. The UK has played a proud role in global efforts but HIV remains a major challenge in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to some of the statistics but, for me, the two most striking are the 2014 statistic showing that more than 6,000 new people in the UK were diagnosed with HIV and that in the same year an estimated 18,000 people were living with HIV but were unaware of their infection. The argument that the noble Lord put forward for testing, and for publicity about testing, is very important, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively in that regard.
That then leads us to the wider issue of tackling stigma. I very much commend the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Black, made for a public information campaign. However, I would link it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, did, with sex and relationship education. That is vital but the statistics are frightening. We know that only 40% of secondary schools in the state maintained sector have proper sex and relationship education on the curriculum and that primary schools, academies and free schools do not need to teach SRE. I do not think that that is right. I hope the noble Lord’s department is in earnest discussions with the Department for Education about a proper change in policy in this area.
The noble Lord mentioned that the last government advice around these areas was produced 16 years ago, and it is the same in relation to sex and relationship education and guidance. There is a need for new guidance. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge in those 16 years—not least the introduction of same-sex marriage, the mass use of mobile phones, the internet, and all the issues in social media that that brings in relation to sex and relationships. The Government need to look at these issues very carefully.
I cannot add much in relation to PrEP because noble Lords have covered the subject adequately. The argument for its use is overwhelming, as is the economic case if we look at it in the round rather than from a narrow departmental point of view. It has never been explained why NHS England has taken this perverse point of view. It is equally puzzling why it is carrying on with the case having been comprehensively shown, in the judgment, the error of its ways. I am also puzzled why Ministers have simply not called in the chairman of NHS England and told him to sort his body out. We have had no cohesive explanation as to what this is about.
I completely put aside the argument that this should be for local government. It is a nonsensical argument which no one in the field believes is true. Clearly it is a device for NHS England to avoid committing itself to the expenditure of this money. If it is, it should come clean on it. If you look beneath the emotive language, essentially that is what the press release to which the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred is saying. I agree that many of the organisations involved in specialist services feel that blackmail is being undertaken by NHS England at the moment. It is a hard word to use, but when a senior medical official talks about making comparisons between people who indulge in high-risk sex and children with cystic fibrosis, I find it a disgraceful use of words. I am surprised that Ministers have not called that official to account.
We all know that in the current climate hard choices are being made. However, I cannot believe that Ministers do not think that PrEP should be funded. The noble Lord may quote the 2012 Act in terms of the relationship between Ministers and the NHS Executive, but he knows only too well that Ministers are accountable to Parliament and that they should discharge that accountability.
On public health budgets, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, pointed out one of the problems with the 2012 Act—the fragmentation of effort in this area. There are two issues here: one is that there is fragmentation between local government and the health service; the second is that some local authorities are not taking their responsibilities and that others, particularly those in the big city areas, are having greater pressure put on them because individual patients are going to them because their own local services are not available. This needs review. We should probably work in partnership with the Local Government Association to see whether we can iron out the inconsistencies.
Another problem is the issue of public health budgets, which have taken more than their fair share of reductions as a result of the financial stringency. It makes it difficult to make sense of the overall five-year forward plan of NHS England, which promotes public health and prevention, yet in the budgeting decisions seems to detract from the ability of services to play their full part.
This has been an excellent debate and I endorse the points put forward by all noble Lords. It would be nice if the Minister were to say that it is the Government’s intention and aim to subscribe to the thrust of the noble Lord’s Question and, above all, to sort out some of these problems, particularly the issue of PrEP and the integration of services between health and local government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very good debate and everyone who contributed to it has had something of interest to say. For me it has been a wake-up call. As has been reflected in a number of speeches, I thought this problem had somehow been sorted out, but clearly it has not been. My noble friend Lord Maude talked about the tragedy of his own brother, and of course for him it was not sorted out. I had thought that since then we had made huge progress, and of course we have done so. I would like also to echo the comments of my noble friend Lady Bottomley about our new Lord Speaker because I can feel his presence glowering down at me on this issue. He said to me not all that long ago that when he took up his new role he would not be able to pester me about the long-term sustainability of the NHS. But I can feel his presence this evening.
My noble friend Lord Black made an outstanding speech, which brought all the threads of the arguments together. Perhaps I may pick out a few of the individual points that have been raised. I know Jonathan Fielden, the deputy medical director at NHS England. He is a very humane, decent and experienced doctor and I think he would be horrified to feel that what he said or how he said it—I have not seen his exact words—would be interpreted in the way it has been. I will write to him with a transcript of this debate and I will leave how he would like to respond to it up to him. I am sure that the last thing he would want to do is leave the impression that he clearly has with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and indeed with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
My noble friend Lord Maude talked about the cross-government and cross-ministerial issues and how difficult it can be for one department to bear the cost when the benefit is being received by another. It is worth saying that in this case the cost of treatment lies with NHS England, so it seems entirely reasonable that the cost of prevention should also lie with NHS England and that they are kept within the same budget. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, suggested having a cross-government Minister. All my experience of cross-government Ministers has been that they are not all that effective because the silos that we have created in British Government are very strong. The noble Lord also drew a comparison with the strategy for hepatitis C. In a sense we face the same problems dealing with hepatitis C as we do with PrEP and countless other drugs: there is a limit to the money we have available. There is a cost. The noble Lord says that it will all end up with the taxpayer, but the fact is that the taxpayer has given us a certain amount of money for the NHS. We would like to spend a lot of it on treating hepatitis C, on PrEP and on other drugs, but we simply do not always have the money to spend as we would like.
Perhaps I may turn to the speech that I had prepared beforehand. It falls short in some respects of what I have been asked to do this evening. I was struck by that when listening to the quality of the debate, but noble Lords will have to be the judge of my speech more than I can be myself. I am hugely impressed by what has been said this evening and I am sure it will have a big impact outside the Chamber as well as within it.
It is worth restating that the NHS provides excellent treatment and care for people living with HIV. The success of our treatment services means that the UK is already ahead in meeting two of the three ambitions set out in the UNAIDS 90-90-90 target: 90% of people with HIV being diagnosed; 90% on ARV treatment; and 90% viral suppression for those on ARV treatment by 2020. In 2014, of all those attending for care, 91% were on treatment, of whom 95% were virally suppressed and very unlikely to be infectious to others. So we have achieved more than 90% on two of those UN goals.
There are other positive indicators of success. Late diagnosis of HIV, defined as a diagnosis made after the point at which treatment is recommended, has declined from 50% of diagnoses in 2010 to 40% in 2013, but that is still too high. Reducing late diagnoses remains important since people who are diagnosed late have a tenfold increase in the likelihood of death in the first year of diagnosis compared with those diagnosed more promptly. Reducing late diagnosis is included as an indicator in the public health outcomes framework. We are also reducing the proportion of people with undiagnosed HIV, which was down to about 17% in 2014 from an estimated 25% in 2010. More progress is needed to reach the global goal, but things are improving in the right direction.
I had been doing a bit of work with a colleague of the medical director of NHS England, Bruce Keogh. She is a specialist in HIV. She sent me a note. I should say that she is very supportive of PrEP. I would not want to mischaracterise her view. She said that around 80% of HIV infections in men who have sex with men are transmitted by the 20% of individuals who are unaware that they are HIV positive. She tells me that people who are not aware of their diagnosis do not make the same effort to modify their behaviour—for example, the consistent use of condoms—to reduce transmission. Undiagnosed individuals are not on treatment, so have high levels of HIV in their blood, which makes them more likely to pass on the infection to others. There is no dispute between us on the importance of early diagnosis.
Overall, new diagnoses of HIV remain stable, with an estimated 6,151 new diagnoses in 2014, up very slightly from 6,000 in 2013. Of course, we must not be complacent. We know that much more needs to be done to reduce the new number of HIV infections, especially in men who have sex with men, where we continue to see increases in new infections. We also know that transmission is continuing among black African men and women who are acquiring their infection within the UK.
So what are we doing? To really tackle rates of HIV infection we must increase regular HIV testing and promote safer sexual behaviour, particularly condom use. In England, the Government continue to invest £2.4 million each year in national HIV prevention. This funding is allocated across three main areas. First, funding has been allocated to seven new innovative local HIV prevention projects. Activities being undertaken include providing full sexual health screening in saunas and other similar premises, to working with faith leaders to promote HIV prevention and testing among black and minority ethnic communities. A further round of funding for 2016 and 2017 was announced in June this year. The successful projects will be announced in September. We will be building on learning from the year one projects.
Secondly, we know that early testing and diagnosis reduce the risk of onward transmission of HIV. This is the basis of the new HIV home sampling service, which my noble friend Lord Black referred to. It is one of the first of its kind. Some 27,173 HIV self-sampling kits were ordered between November 2015 and May 2016; 13,992 kits were returned, of which 197—1.4%—were reactive. This is encouraging, given the challenge of identifying those living with undiagnosed HIV. Central funding was provided through PHE until January 2016, when the service transitioned to local authorities. Eighty are now signed up to funding the service. PHE will look to build on these numbers.
The third and final strand of funding is from the Terrence Higgins Trust, which has been awarded a new contract to lead and manage a national partnership to deliver information and resources to improve the proportion of individuals in highest-risk populations able to make safe and sustainable sexual health choices and reduce HIV incidence. The programme will focus on social marketing and local HIV prevention activity, as well as monitoring and evaluation activities.
I turn to PrEP, which, as most noble Lords will know, is a new use of HIV drugs that has shown clinical effectiveness in research trials at preventing HIV in people at higher risk of getting HIV. The trials recruited men who have sex with men engaged in high-risk behaviours and people with HIV positive partners—this is the PROUD clinical trial. As noble Lords mentioned, it has been extremely successful. It is important to note that the drug used for PrEP, Truvada, is not yet licensed for this use in the UK. It is licensed only for treatment, not for prevention. However, progress is being made with an application to the EMA and a licence is expected to be granted very shortly.
PrEP should not be seen as a silver bullet. It is only one of a range of activities to tackle HIV. As with any new intervention, PrEP will need to be properly assessed in relation to clinical and cost effectiveness, including how it compares with existing cost-effective approaches, to see how it could be commissioned in the most sustainable and integrated way. The NICE evidence review is considering the published evidence on PrEP and will be published shortly. We know, however, that cost-effectiveness is very sensitive to HIV incidence in the target population and effective targeting; the adherence to taking the medication, which affects clinical effectiveness—although I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about intermittently taking the drug—and the cost of PrEP drugs.
Time is running out. There has been criticism about the handling of this by NHS England. NHS England has provided an assurance that all the proposals considered as part of its prioritisation process will be subject to the same robust assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness and relative prioritisation within the resources available, as well as the impact on people from vulnerable and protected groups.
I felt that the leader in the Times got the balance about right when it said:
“There are reasons, however, to resist the conclusion that HIV prevention should be left to the HIV-positive. Few would be comfortable if the state stepped back from HIV treatment altogether, just as it would be thought indecent of a society to let smokers die of lung cancer or allow the obese to succumb to heart disease on the basis that such illnesses are behaviourally induced”.
There is no intention at all on the part of NHS England or the Government to discriminate in any way against the use of PrEP because of people’s lifestyle choices. I can give that absolute assurance to noble Lords. The appeal is taking place on 15 September and I cannot comment further on the court case, but I can assure noble Lords that the decision on whether or not to use PrEP will be assessed in an absolutely normal way.
I will make just one last comment, which I do not expect some Members of this House to agree with. The decisions about which drugs to prioritise and how to prioritise drugs should surely be made by clinicians and NHS England, not politicians. The noble Lord is shaking his head but that is the whole thrust of the way that the NHS has been set up, and the involvement of politicians in picking one drug against another is surely not the right way forward. I have to leave it as it stands.