House of Commons
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 10 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
Speaker’s Statement
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
I wish to make a short statement to the House.
A fortnight ago, the House of Commons Commission endorsed a proposition upon which I confess that I am myself very keen—having, indeed, originally suggested it myself—that a wider range of less senior procedural Clerks should have an opportunity to sit at the Table alongside more experienced colleagues to familiarise themselves with Chamber practice and procedure. At the same time, the Commission endorsed a proposition from the Clerk of the House, reflecting the overwhelming view of his colleagues, that Clerks should no longer wear wigs at the Table in the Chamber. They will also cease to wear court dress, but they will continue to wear gowns, so as to be distinguishable as experts in parliamentary procedure—not lawyers, and certainly not Members. Details are in a letter from the Clerk of the House to the Chair of the Procedure Committee, which is available on the Committee’s website and in the Vote Office.
Colleagues will be pleased to learn that this change will in the longer term save money. It will, I believe, be welcomed by those Clerks who serve or look forward to serving at the Table, and it will moreover, in my view—which I recognise may not be universally shared—convey to the public a marginally less stuffy and forbidding image of this Chamber at work. The new regime will start soon after we return from the short February recess.
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call Karen Buck. Not here. Well, one person who is here—I can see that very clearly, to my great satisfaction—is the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames).
The Secretary of State was asked—
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
We are replacing the historical postcode lottery in school funding with a proper, transparent national funding formula that is fair whereby funding will be allocated to schools based on the needs of pupils. Compared with the alternative of the current postcode-lottery approach, the fairer funding proposals on which we are consulting would mean a £14.6 million annual increase in funding to local West Sussex schools.
Sir Nicholas Soames
I am sorry, Mr Speaker; you caught me without my wig.
Almost all the 286 schools in West Sussex find their budgets under extreme strain, so they welcome these new developments, but as West Sussex is already one of the lowest funded of all the shire counties, will my right hon. Friend look very carefully in particular at the budgets of small rural schools, which find themselves unfortunately and unfavourably treated?
Justine Greening
Of course, my right hon. Friend will be aware that we are in the second phase of the consultation on the introduction of the national funding formula. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to finally reach a settlement on fair funding that really works. I know that he and many other colleagues will have their views about how they want the formula to work, and he is right to raise them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I listened carefully to the response from the Secretary of State, who has not broadened the matter, and therefore the question appertains exclusively to West Sussex.
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s Chester constituency is a considerable distance from West Sussex, but if, and only if, his question focuses exclusively upon West Sussex—
Christian Matheson
West Sussex’s education funding has increased by 1.9%—I am very pleased to hear that—but other areas close to West Sussex will have received cuts of up to 1.3%, so why is West Sussex being treated so much more generously?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a very fine man, but I am not sure that he would triumph if he appeared on “Just a Minute”.
Justine Greening
I recognise that the funding formula means that schools will receive different settlements from the ones that they have had in the past. We are trying to ensure that every single child, wherever they are growing up in England, gets the same amount of funding, but that there is then a top-up in relation to additional needs, such as in respect of deprivation, which has been based on out-of-date data up until now, or indeed additional funding for low prior attainment.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the impact of the new formula in West Sussex dis-proportionately disadvantage rural primary schools in the way that it will elsewhere?
Justine Greening
The introduction of the formula leads to different effects in different parts of the country. Obviously, we are putting in place a fair funding formula, but it has to work for all schools. We are having the second phase of the consultation to try to ensure that we get this right. We have particularly focused on helping small rural schools by relating an element of the formula to sparsity. There is also a lump-sum element. I am interested to hear all colleagues’ views in the consultation.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s answers so far will give no comfort to schools in West Sussex, which will have had an 8% reduction by 2019, or anywhere else that is facing real-terms funding cuts. Does she stand by her party’s manifesto pledge that every school in Britain, including every school in West Sussex, will receive a real-terms spending increase per pupil during this Parliament?
Justine Greening
As ever, the hon. Lady is not clear about whether she even supports the concept of fair funding. I would have thought that all MPs would want to see all children getting fair schools funding across the board. A record amount of money is going into our schools budget and we have protected the core schools budget in real terms. There is record funding, but it is important that we ensure, through the fair funding formula, that it is distributed fairly.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
We received 6,000 responses to the first stage of the consultation on the national funding formula, which sets out the principles and factors to be used in the formula. We continue to receive representations on the second stage of the consultation, which closes on 22 March. Our proposals for funding reform will mean that schools will, for the first time, receive a consistent and fair share of the schools budget, addressing the anachronistic unfair funding system that has been in place since 2005.
Mr Bradshaw
Exeter schools already suffer a double whammy—they are in one of the lowest funded counties in England, and they have to subsidise the high cost of providing school transport and keeping open small rural schools—yet the new funding formula will actually make them worse off. How will the Minister explain that to my constituents and to the schools themselves?
Mr Gibb
In Devon, as a result of the new funding formula and on the basis of the figures for 2016-17, school funding would rise from £377.2 million to £378.7 million, an increase of 0.4%. In the right hon. Gentleman’s Exeter constituency, there will be no overall change in the level of funding, although there will of course be changes between schools. Whenever we introduce a new national formula and illustrate it on the basis of the current year’s figures—in this case, 2016-17—some schools will inevitably gain and others will lose. Overall, 54% of schools across the country will gain under the new national funding formula.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
If these proposals are adopted, the historically underfunded constituency of East Devon will have 15 primary schools that gain while 20 lose out, and all our secondary schools will lose out. That is clearly neither fair nor acceptable. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me and other Devon MPs so that we can make our point yet again?
Mr Gibb
I am very happy to meet my right hon. Friend. I think that the Secretary of State has already met Devon MPs to discuss this matter, but I am sure that she will do so again.
I understand the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire). There is a small fall in overall funding in his constituency, although 40% of schools in East Devon will see a rise in income on the basis of the new formula. The new funding formula attaches a higher value to deprivation than Devon’s local formula, so schools in Devon with a low proportion of pupils from a disadvantaged background or with low prior attainment do less well under the national formula. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will continue to make representations through the consultation, which closes on 22 March.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. By his earlier reference to the situation “across the country”, the Minister extended the question beyond Devon, allowing other would-be contributors to ask a question.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
The head of one of my local academy trusts tells me that his school will lose more than 2.5% of its overall budget as a result of the national funding formula alone. That figure is higher than the 1.5% cap promised by the Government. Does the Minister share the trust’s view that the cuts will have the biggest impact on deprived and vulnerable children? If so, what are the Government doing?
Mr Gibb
No, I am afraid that the hon. Lady is wrong. We aggregated all the local funding formulae across the 150 local authorities and looked at the level of deprivation. We are allocating 9.5% of the national funding formula to deprivation, which is broadly in line with the existing position. We have also increased the amount in the funding formula that goes to children who start school behind. The scheme is deliberately designed to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds who are falling behind. I would have thought that the hon. Lady, representing the constituency that she does, would support a fairer funding system that helps those particular children.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Mr Gibb
I accept my hon. Friend’s comments. Schools in his constituency will gain about £300,000 of funding overall—a 0.6% increase. On the basis of illustrative figures for 2016-17, 70.6% of schools in his constituency will actually gain funding, compared with 29% that will lose a small amount.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Mr Gibb
Because the hon. Lady’s constituency will remain one of the highest-funded areas of the country. She is right that the per pupil funding rate in Lewisham, Deptford will fall from £5,708 to £5,550 as a result of the national funding formula, but that is still one of the highest in the country. The prosperity of London as a whole has increased over the past 10 years, with the proportion of children on free school meals falling from 27% to 18%, but it still has some of the highest levels of deprivation. That is why, under the new national funding formula, London’s funding remains 30% higher than the national average.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I welcome the principle of the new national funding formula, but one third of schools in North Devon look set to lose funding under the indicative figures. Will the Minister continue to listen carefully to our representations? Will he also confirm whether the indicative figures are just that and that they could be subject to some revision?
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm last week’s report that the Secretary of State handed back to the Treasury £384 million that was earmarked for school improvement? Does he agree with the estimate of London Councils that it would take £335 million to ensure that no school loses out under the new funding formula?
Mr Gibb
The hon. Lady should know how negotiations with the Treasury work. We negotiated a good agreement with the Treasury and have protected core school funding in real terms. We are spending £40 billion a year on school funding—a record high figure—and that is set to rise, as pupil numbers rise over the next two years, to £42 billion by 2019-20. The figure that she refers to is about the cost of academisation. That proposal continues, but we are not targeting the same timetable that was agreed in the previous White Paper.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that Torbay’s schools benefit overall from the proposals, yet the grammar schools that serve a large swathe of south Devon do not. I thank him for his courtesy in recently meeting the heads of those schools. Will he update me on when we are likely to receive a detailed response to the points we raised?
Mr Gibb
As I said at the meeting, which I enjoyed very much, schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency will gain £1.2 million of extra funding under the new national funding formula, which amounts to an increase of 2.4%. The funding of 78% of schools in his constituency will increase as a result of the formula. I listened carefully to the representations that he and headteachers in his constituency made, and I will respond to him shortly.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Minister said earlier that it will be schools with fewer deprived pupils and better prior attainment that are likely to lose out under his proposals, but in my constituency that is simply wrong. The nine schools that will have their funding cut are in the most deprived parts of the city where, on average, children start school 20 months behind where they should be in their development. Something has gone very badly wrong with his plans. Will he look again and explain to me and the teachers in my constituency why the kids who need help the most are going to lose out?
Mr Gibb
The hon. Lady will have looked at the consultation document and seen that a very high proportion of the national funding formula is allocated on the basis of disadvantage—it is based on pupils’ low prior attainment and things such as English as an additional language. The difference is that we are basing the national funding formula on today’s data, not the data as they were in 2005. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put in place something that the Labour party neglected to do: a fair national funding formula that is based on a clear set of factors and principles, and on up-to-date data.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
In East Sussex, funding per pupil is £193 lower than the national average. What more can be done for my schools in Wealden, which are both small and rural?
Mr Gibb
We have ensured that sparsity is an important factor in the national funding formula and we are increasing funding for the sparsity element from £15 million to £27 million across the system. East Sussex sees an increase in its funding overall and my hon. Friend should welcome this much fairer system. It is fairer to schools in East Sussex and right across the country.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Mr Gibb
I suggest that the hon. Lady tells schools in Hull that, because of the way in which the new national funding formula addresses historical anachronisms and because of our focus on tackling deprivation, Hull’s school funding under the formula rises from £157 million to £161.7 million, which is an increase of some 3%. In her constituency of Kingston upon Hull North, funding rises by £1.4 million, with 83% of her schools seeing an increase in funding on the basis of 2016-17 figures.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
As we have been hearing, the Government want a fairer approach. It is clear that the Labour party supports the status quo of an unfair, un-transparent, outdated postcode-lottery approach to how schools funding is distributed. For Hampshire, this fairer alternative will mean extra money: £9 million of extra money every year for high-needs children in local Hampshire schools, in fact, and a further £4.5 million every year for Hampshire schools overall on top of that. My hon. Friend’s local schools in North East Hampshire will gain more than £1 million a year.
Mr Jayawardena
I thank the Secretary of State for those figures, which are most welcome—indeed, the county council leader said that to me the other day—but living costs are also high in Hampshire, especially in North East Hampshire. Will she consider tweaking the formula so that it includes a cost-neutral cost of living allowance, given that the average house price in my patch is £375,000, but house prices just over the border, where there is a London allowance, are £50,000 cheaper?
Justine Greening
I am sure my hon. Friend will want to make those points as part of the consultation that is under way, but as he will be aware, our formula looks at area cost adjustments that take into account variations in not only the general labour market but specifically the teaching labour markets. Such an approach is designed to compensate schools that face higher wage costs. We have a measure that is based on salaries, which we think is the best way, but as I said, this is a consultation and I am sure he will want to put the point he makes into it.
Mr Speaker
It is quite a long way over the border to Liverpool, Wavertree, but there we go. I call Luciana Berger.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
During these questions, we seem to be dealing with some “alternative facts”. According to the details I have in front of me, Liverpool schools are set to lose £3.6 million. I visited a primary school in Picton in my constituency—Picton is one of the most deprived wards in the country—that is going to lose more than 10% of its budget; we are talking about more than £100,000 for some of the most deprived children in this country. Can the Government please explain to Labour Members, and to the whole House, exactly what is going on and why they seem to be presenting something very different from what our schools are having to contend with in reality?
Justine Greening
I think it is because we are using accurate data. We end up in a straightforward place. First, do we believe that our children should be funded fairly during their time in school, wherever in the country they are growing up? Secondly, do we believe that deprivation funding should be based on up-to-date data? If the Labour party wants an approach that is unfair and based on out-of-date data, I will be happy to see its submissions to the consultation.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
Our proposals for funding reform mean that schools and local authority areas would, for the first time, receive a consistent and fair share of the schools budget, so that they can give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential. The consultation on the second stage runs until 22 March. In Gloucestershire, funding would rise from £331.5 million to £334 million because of the national funding formula, on the basis of the 2016-17 figures, which is a rise of 0.8%.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My right hon. Friend is well aware that Gloucestershire has suffered for years under the current system; there is a 61% disparity between the top-funded and the bottom-funded primary schools. Will he look carefully at the unfair proposals he has brought forward in the funding formula, because they double-count items such as deprivation, low attainment and English as a first language, and it is not fair on rural schools?
Mr Gibb
I have listened very carefully to the representations my hon. Friend makes, both today and in the various meetings we have held. The Government’s proposals for funding reform seek to balance carefully the differing needs of rural and urban schools. Schools in the historically lowest-funded areas would gain, on average, about 3.6% under the national funding formula; 676 small and remote rural schools would also benefit from sparsity funding for the first time; and, nationally, small rural schools, as a group, would gain 1.3% on average, with primary schools in sparse areas gaining some 5.3% on average. In his constituency, 64% of the schools would gain funding under the proposals, based on applying the formula to the current year’s figures.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Under the new funding proposals, Ormiston South Parade academy in my constituency will see a 2.8% reduction in its budget, yet The Times reported last week that Ormiston Academies Trust is seeking to hire a public relations agency for up to £900,000 to deal with reputational management. Does the Minister think that parents will consider that a good use of Government funding or that that money should be spent on the school?
Mr Gibb
Academies face much greater financial scrutiny than local authority schools. They have to produce annual audited accounts, whereas local authority schools do not, and the Education Funding Agency scrutinises closely, on a quarterly basis, the funding and expenditure of academies and multi-academy trusts.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Mr Gibb
The new funding formula is designed to ensure that funding is properly matched to need. It uses up-to-date data so that children who face entrenched barriers to their education receive the teaching and support that they need. I recognise that my hon. Friend will be disappointed by the impact of the proposals, on the basis of illustrative figures for the 2016-17 year for schools in Southend. As he knows, we are conducting a full consultation on the formula’s details, and I know he will continue to make his views known through that process.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) about funding for academies, what will the Minister do to help schools such as the Whitehaven academy in Cumbria, which has been left with a crumbling building after his Government axed its capital funding, and where the teachers are now prevented from photocopying to save money? Will the Government help the pupils and parents who need support?
Mr Gibb
It is nice to hear from the hon. Lady for the third time. We are spending record amounts on capital: £23 billion has been allocated for capital spending over this spending review period. We created 600,000 more school places in the previous Parliament, and we are committed to creating another 600,000 in this Parliament. We are spending £40 billion a year on revenue funding for schools—a record amount that over the next two years will rise, as pupil numbers rise, to £42 billion. None of that would be possible if we relied on the Labour party to oversee the economy. We have a strong economy and we are rescuing it from the fiasco of the previous Labour Government.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
We want to see an education system that works for everyone and that drives social mobility by breaking the link between a person’s background and where they get to in life. We are delivering more good school places; strengthening the teaching profession; investing in and improving careers education; transforming technical education and apprenticeships; opening up access to universities; and focusing effort on areas of the country with the greatest challenges and the fewest opportunities, through opportunity areas.
Michelle Donelan
Currently, the pupil premium is a very limited measure—for instance, children who are young carers are not recognised. In addition, it stops at 16, despite some form of education being compulsory until 18. Will the Minister therefore consider a review of the pupil premium to achieve true social mobility?
Justine Greening
The pupil premium is worth £2.5 billion this year, and it is helping to level the playing field for 2 million disadvantaged children, including many young carers and children with mental health problems. We are also looking at the Children’s Commissioner’s recent report and, indeed, our own DFE research on the lives of young carers in England, as part of the cross-Government carers strategy that is being reviewed and developed. On the point about age, the national funding formula for 16 to 19-year-olds provides extra funding for disadvantaged students—around £540 million this year.
Ben Howlett
I welcomed the Government’s “Schools that work for everyone” Green Paper—probably as much as the Secretary of State enjoyed reading my lengthy response to it. It showed the Government’s commitment to ensuring that all pupils have the best chance of accessing a good education.When will the draft be published?
Justine Greening
I very much appreciated my hon. Friend’s submission to that consultation. We received several thousand submissions, which we are now going through. We will respond in the spring.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I noticed that the Secretary of State did not mention grammar schools in her answers to the previous questions about social mobility. Is that perhaps because in seven out of 10 grammar schools, all the free-school-meals children could fit in one classroom? Sir William Borlase’s grammar school, which I understand is set to be the first to open a new school, has just three children on free school meals. Does she think that reflects true social mobility? Are those numbers acceptable, and if not, what is she doing about it?
Justine Greening
We have been clear that we want to see existing grammars take more free-school-meals and disadvantaged children. The right way to go about getting no progress is to have no consultation and no policy development in this area, which is apparently the Labour party’s position.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
If the Department for Education is as committed to social mobility through education as it claims, will the Secretary of State explain why cuts to the early years funding formula and to local authorities have actually weakened outstanding early years education, which is the foundation of social mobility?
Justine Greening
Record levels of funding are going into early years. We are now extending the 15 hours of free childcare to 30. It is simply wrong to characterise this Government as doing anything other than pumping record amounts of money into both early years and indeed the school system.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
Under the proposed formula, small rural schools will gain an average of 1.3% in funding, on the basis of the illustrative figures. We have also confirmed that the national funding formula will include a sparsity factor. That will particularly target funding on small and remote schools, which we know play an important role in our local communities. On average, small schools serving such communities would gain 3.3%, and small primary schools 5.3%.
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank the Minister for that answer. Under these proposals, some Shrewsbury schools will benefit and others will lose. Overall as a country, we still see the extraordinary situation in which, on average, Shropshire pupils can get as little as half that of inner-city children. How can he justify parts of the United Kingdom continuing to get almost double what we get in Shropshire?
Mr Gibb
In Shropshire as a whole, school funding rises from £151.7 million to £153.2 million as a result of the national funding formula based on the illustrative figures. That is a rise of some 0.9%. In my hon. Friend’s constituency, schools as a group will see an additional £100,000 of funding.
Maria Caulfield
Given that small rural schools in East Sussex are set to lose funding under the fairer funding formula, will the Minister review the need for those maintained schools to pay the apprenticeship levy, which adds to their costs, especially as fewer than half of the stand-alone academies pay that levy?
Mr Gibb
The apprenticeship levy is an important policy, as my hon. Friend will know. It is designed to ensure that we have the skills that are needed for our economy. The levy can be used to fund training and professional development in schools, and we will provide schools with detailed information on how the levy will work for them and how they can make the most of available apprenticeships.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Does the help in funding for rural schools not represent the opposite of addressing the need that I raised in a recent debate—disappointingly, the Minister did not even mention it when summing up the debate—for areas that have a high influx of additional pupils during the school year? I estimate that next year something like 600 school places in Slough will get zero funding, because, despite his talking about up-to-date deprivation numbers, he is not working his funding formula on up-to-date pupil numbers.
Mr Gibb
The formula does contain an element for growth. We also responded to the representations on mobility made by the right hon. Lady’s colleague, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). When pupils join a school part way through the year, that will be factored in. I would have expected her to welcome both those changes to the funding formula.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) had hastily to delete a tweet this week that showed that the national debt had exploded on this Government’s watch. Therefore, the sparsity formula, which was to save rural schools everywhere, has become the paucity formula. Should the Minister not tell the House that the key issue facing schools up to 2020 is the £3 billion-worth of cuts coming down the line for every school in the country?
Mr Gibb
Funding is increasing to £42 billion by the end of this spending review period. We are increasing the amount allocated for sparsity from £15 million under the current formula to £27 million. The hon. Gentleman talks about debt, but, since 2010, we have had to face the problem of tackling the historic budget deficit inherited from the last Labour Government because of their poor stewardship of the public finances. Tackling that debt and that deficit has enabled us to have a strong economy with growing employment and greater opportunities for young people when they leave school.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)
My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, in 2015-16, 131,400 under-19 apprentices climbed up the ladder of opportunity to get the skills and jobs that they need for the future. We are investing millions in supporting providers and employers to employ apprentices. We also have the Get In Go Far campaign, which is working incredibly well, and we are investing £90 million in careers guidance, including in the Careers and Enterprise Company.
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement of progress. Does he agree that a UCAS system for apprenticeships could improve the status of apprenticeships, make it easier for businesses and students to connect with each other, and end the classroom divide between those applying to university and those applying for technical education?
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the UCAS issue. He is absolutely right. We are looking very hard at this, and we announced it in our industrial strategy. We want to ensure that we give technical education students and apprentices clear information with a platform similar to UCAS. We are looking at how we can ensure that it works to help to address the skills deficit and to help the socially disadvantaged.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Is it not time to place a duty on schools to allow colleges and other providers of post-16 education, including apprenticeships, access to pupils so that those pupils are fully aware of the options available to them?
Robert Halfon
As so often, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I recently visited degree apprentices at Gateshead College whose own school refused them a visit in order to talk about apprenticeships, skills and technical education. We are doing a lot of work to ensure that careers guidance in schools properly reflects the options available. We have introduced legislation and we are looking to do more to ensure that students are offered skills and apprenticeships.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Havering College of Further and Higher Education on its excellent five-week railway skills course from which 85% of students are moving on to apprenticeships in an area where there is a great skills shortage? Would he agree that a five-week course is an ideal way of encouraging less academic students to remain in education?
Robert Halfon
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend in her place. Not only do I offer my huge congratulations to Havering College; I would be pleased to visit with my hon. Friend.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Minister quoted the statistics for 2015-16, but the proportion of apprenticeships for under 19-year-olds, compared with those for older apprentices, was basically stagnant at just 26% compared with 25.2% the previous year: only one in four of all apprenticeships. The latest stats—for the first quarter—show that numbers for 16 to 18-year-olds are getting worse, with 58,190 compared with 63,200 the previous year, which is a drop of 8%. With the head of engineering training provider JTL saying that Government funding changes could cut its apprenticeships for 16 to 18-year-old by two thirds, and thousands of youngsters blocked from getting apprenticeships by being on the treadmill of GCSE English and maths resits that only one in four of them passes, where is the Government’s beef for 16 to 18-year-olds, instead of motherhood and apple pie?
Robert Halfon
I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman’s question. He often does not see the apprentice wood for the apprentice trees. We now have the highest number of apprenticeships on record in our island’s history at 899,000, with more than 780,000 apprenticeship starts since May 2015. We are investing millions in ensuring that employers and providers hire apprentices. We have a record to be proud of.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
Department for Education officials meet regularly with their counterparts from the Home Office to discuss a range of issues including student immigration policy. Let me be clear that the Government value the contribution that international students make to the UK’s excellent higher education sector, both economically and culturally. That is why we have no plans to limit the number of genuine international students who can come here to study.
Alan Brown
If the Government really value international students, I suggest they reappraise the need for a post-study work visa, which would allow students to come here, integrate into communities and bring value to their campuses and communities. When will the Government revisit that?
Joseph Johnson
The UK has an excellent post-study work offer. Students can switch into a number of other visa routes to take up work after their studies. About 6,000 switched to a tier 2 skilled worker visa in 2015, and there is no cap on the number who may make that switch.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Higher education is one of the United Kingdom’s greatest exports, and the Government are promoting it brilliantly. Do the Government think that, as we move forward post-Brexit, we should look to take student numbers outside the immigration figures?
Joseph Johnson
The key thing is that, whether or not they are in those figures, there is no limit on the number of international students who can come here to study. The UK is the best place in the world to get a higher education, and we are delighted that, for the last six years, over 170,000 international students have come to study in the UK.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Joseph Johnson
The UK is immensely successful at attracting international students. We are second in the world in terms of our market share, behind only the United States. We continue to extend a warm welcome, and we wish that more international students would come.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Scottish universities, of course, were not included in the post-study work pilot. The Scottish Parliament’s Europe committee has today published a report calling for Scotland to have a differing immigration system; this is the third parliamentary report calling for that. Will the Minister now urge the Home Secretary to listen and include Scottish institutions in the post-study work scheme?
Joseph Johnson
Scottish institutions are successful in attracting international students, and they are also successful in seeing those students switch into post-study work. It is important to note that the number switching into work after study is increasing: it was at 6,000 last year—up from 5,000 the year before and 4,000 the year before that.
Carol Monaghan
Being considered an international student post-Brexit will affect whether EU students choose to come to the UK, and that will have a major impact on university funding. What discussion has the Minister had with the Home Secretary on the immigration status of EU students post-Brexit?
Joseph Johnson
These questions will be considered in the context of the broader discussions relating to our withdrawal from the European Union.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
We are concerned that the quality of education in too many Northamptonshire schools is not good enough, especially for disadvantaged pupils. We are using new powers to tackle inadequate schools and to move them into strong multi-academy trusts. We are also working with the local authority, teaching schools and academy trusts to ensure that schools are receiving appropriate support to help them to improve.
Mr Hollobone
Educational attainment in Northamptonshire, sadly, is still below the national average. What is the single most important thing the local education authority should be doing to raise standards?
Mr Gibb
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in seeking to raise standards in Northamptonshire schools. In October, together with hon. Friends representing Northamptonshire constituencies, we met the director of children’s services at Northamptonshire County Council to discuss academic standards in Northamptonshire schools. That included discussions about standards in phonics, which I would say is the single most important issue; key stage 2 SATs in reading and maths; GCSE results; and the EBacc. I have taken a close interest in the schools in my hon. Friend’s county, and we are meeting again in April to assess progress.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Unfortunately, the Minister is absolutely right. Sir Christopher Hatton school in my constituency is outstanding, but we have two inadequate schools—Rushden and the Wrenn—and the Minister will shortly meet me and the chief executive of the Hatton Academies Trust. Does he agree that local academy trusts also have an important role to play in solving the problem with Northamptonshire’s education?
Mr Gibb
Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend. Collaboration between schools, particularly in local multi-academy trusts, is one of the most effective ways of ensuring that we spread best practice and that schools in a multi-academy trust help one another to raise aspirations and the standard of academic education our children receive.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House in December, increasing education opportunity for disadvantaged pupils underpins our commitment to make sure our country works for everyone. Through the pupil premium, worth £2.5 billion this year, we are narrowing the gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers. In 2016-17, over £8.8 million of this funding was allocated to schools in Swindon.
Justin Tomlinson
It was a great pleasure to welcome the School Standards Minister to Swindon Academy—a school with a predominantly deprived catchment area, a high proportion of children on free school meals, and, crucially, surplus places. Its decision to introduce a grammar scheme in conjunction with Marlborough College has given every student, regardless of background, an opportunity to opt into an academically rigorous curriculum. Will the Minister share this best practice?
Edward Timpson
My right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards just reminded me of how impressed he was on that visit by the steps that that school is taking to provide its pupils with a rigorous academic curriculum. By trusting school leaders like those in Swindon, we are enabling them to use their unparalleled knowledge of their pupils to create new, tailor-made ways of ensuring that every child can academically succeed.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Edward Timpson
As the hon. Gentleman will know, Baverstock Academy went into special measures in September 2014. The Department intervened swiftly to challenge the academy’s senior leadership team, and monitored attainment and progress closely. Throughout 2016, the regional schools commissioner sought a new sponsor for the school, but in November 2016 the Ofsted inspector confirmed that the school remains in special measures. The hon. Gentleman is right to continue to be worried about the schools in his constituency: so are we, and we will continue to do what we can to make sure that we turn this around.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)
Education and training in England are widely respected, but we are determined to make further improvements to make sure that 16 to 19-year-olds are ready for the demands of the workplace. We are reforming academic and technical education for over-16s, and we are learning from the best of international systems.
Kelvin Hopkins
Why are sixth-formers in England funded to receive only half the tuition time and support provided to sixth-formers in Shanghai, Singapore and other leading education systems?
Robert Halfon
I am proud that we have equalised funding between sixth-form colleges and further education colleges, and that we have protected the base rate of spending for FE students and will be spending £7 billion this year on further education. We have funding pressures, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but we are doing everything we can to invest in our skills and education.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
The recent release of school performance statistics confirmed that the hard work of teachers and pupils across the country is leading to higher standards in our schools. Last month I announced a further six opportunity areas aimed at tackling the challenges for young people from early years right through to the world of work. When I announced the first lot of opportunity areas in October, I also made it clear that building a country for everyone means better options for the more than half of our young people who do not choose to go to university. That is why technical education is at the heart of the industrial strategy that the Government published last month. We are determined to create a gold-standard technical route so that the young people who choose to pursue it can get the skills that we, and our economy, need to succeed.
Mrs Murray
I welcome the Government’s commitment to apprenticeships. Lantoom Quarry in my constituency is a leading provider of high-quality apprenticeships leading to permanent full-time employment in many cases. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that aligning further education and training policy with the needs of employers remains a priority?
Justine Greening
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, putting the needs of employers first is at the heart of our apprenticeship reforms. That includes introducing employer-designed standards that test whether an apprentice has the skills, the behaviours and the knowledge that employers need.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
This Government allowed two local authorities rated “good” for children’s services to be granted exemptions from statutory guidance, even extending these exemptions when there was no evidence of improvement. Ofsted has since rated them both “inadequate”, finding that for too long children have been left at risk and are suffering harm. Despite growing evidence of the dangers of these opt-out practices, the Secretary of State is determined to push through massive deregulation in the Children and Social Work Bill, which will allow local authorities to opt out of not just guidance but vast swathes of primary and secondary child protection legislation. Why does she think it is okay to experiment with the lives of vulnerable children?
The Minister for Vulnerable Children and Families (Edward Timpson)
We had a healthy debate about the power to innovate in Committee, but I am afraid the hon. Lady still fails to grasp what we are trying to achieve. Local authorities and social workers tell us that when well-intentioned legislation prevents them from doing what is best for young people, they want to be able to try new ways to ensure that the outcomes for children improve. That is why a whole raft of organisations, including the Children’s Society, have told us that they welcome the Government’s commitment to innovation in children’s social care and support the intention to allow local authorities to test new ways of working in a time-limited, safe, transparent and well-evaluated way. I would have thought the hon. Lady would welcome that, rather than trying to concoct difficult arguments about the way forward that we want to take with the Bill. It is wrong, and she should follow the path that the profession wants to take.
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
I would, of course, be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss school funding in Yeovil. Indeed, so efficient are our offices that that meeting is already in the diary for 27 February. I should remind him that in his constituency, school funding rises by some £2.8 million under the new national funding formula, and that 94% of the schools in his constituency will see a rise in funding.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Caroline Dinenage)
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out that our early years workforce is one of our greatest assets. We will shortly be releasing a workforce strategy, which will outline how we want to improve what already exists. We need to help employers to attract, to retain and to develop their staff to deliver the very highest quality of early years provision.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Justine Greening
We have had representations from some low-funded authorities about whether their schools need a de minimis level of funding in circumstances in which few of their pupils bring with them additional needs funding. We are looking at that and all the other concerns that right hon. and hon. Members have raised during the consultation process, which is why it is an extended one of 14 weeks.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Justine Greening
It is important that we have strong governance for multi-academy trusts, as the hon. Lady points out. I would also say that we need equally strong governance for local authority-maintained schools.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Leeds is reviewing its support for transport to school for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, and there is a risk that people over-16 may not get such funding. Will the Government commit to ensuring that all children in such a situation in the country get the funding they need for transport to school?
Edward Timpson
The hon. Gentleman will know that during the past few years we have been implementing the new special educational needs system. It is embedding well in many parts of the country, but there are still areas that we want to look at to make sure that every child is benefiting from the changes. I am happy to look at the issue that he raises and to meet him if he so wishes, so that we can try to make some progress.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Justine Greening
We have not only focused on maths and English, but we have in particular made sure that girls in school are taking STEM subjects like never before. That is absolutely vital if we are to have the skills that British businesses need to help us to be successful in the future. I am delighted to say that A-level maths is now the most successful A-level, but we want that progress to continue and to have more STEM graduates in future years.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Adult education can transform lives, address our skills gap and address technology change, yet the number of adult learners has fallen off a cliff and the industrial strategy does not even mention it. Can the Secretary of State have a word about that?
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)
The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that by 2020 we will be spending more on the adult education budget than at any time in our island’s history. We are investing in skills, with millions of pounds for the national colleges and the institutes of technology; we are investing in apprenticeships, with 377,000 over-19s in apprenticeships in the past year; and we are investing in adult education—that is exactly what we are doing.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Mr Gibb
I share my hon. Friend’s view about the primacy of reading and writing, which are fundamental to education and to social justice. That is why ensuring that children are taught to read using the method of systematic synthetic phonics—evidence from this country and around the world shows that it works—has been at the heart of our education reforms. As a result, the proportion of six-year-olds reaching the expected standard in the phonics check has risen from 58% in 2012 to 81% in 2016.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
What does the Secretary of State say to my constituent Catherine Foster, who received funding in April 2015 for a health and social care diploma with a provider that has now gone into administration? She has no access to her portfolio and no qualification, but a mountain of debt. Will the Secretary of State look into this case and meet me to help Catherine and thousands of other students in this situation?
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I am very happy to meet her. I know that the Skills Funding Agency is doing everything possible to make sure that anyone affected by such issues has alternative education provision. I have asked the SFA to offer every possible assistance as well.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of this information. We are currently finalising the details of the technical and applied qualifications that will count in 2019 performance tables, and we will publish the list as soon as possible.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that the university technical college bid in Doncaster is vital to improving skills and increasing apprenticeships? Will she, without delay, give the college the go-ahead, or meet the local chamber of commerce and local authority to explain the delay?
Justine Greening
I have had a chance to look around a number of UTCs during my time in this role, and many of them are producing an outstanding education that is very different from the education the young people who go to them might otherwise have had. I am well aware that Doncaster wants a response in relation to its UTC application—I very much welcome the backing that the right hon. Lady has given it—and we will confirm the decision shortly.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Too many people leave school without achieving the results they need, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the incredible work done by the British Army at the Pirbright and Catterick training camps in getting people who join those establishments without the necessary grades up to the right grade, and will he undertake to find out what can be learned from those places?
Mr Gibb
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the work of the Army training camps at Catterick and Pirbright to the attention of the House. The Army has a strong track record of delivering high-quality education and training. I would be delighted to discuss these issues further with him.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Sir Michael Wilshaw recently urged the Government to tackle the comparatively low standards in many northern and midlands secondary schools, and Nottingham’s education improvement board has identified teacher recruitment and retention as its No. 1 priority. How can the Secretary of State honestly believe that cutting the funding of every single school in my constituency will help them to attract the best teachers and so raise standards among young people in some of our most deprived communities?
Justine Greening
The Government have put huge amounts of funding into the northern powerhouse strategy to help schools across the north to lift their standards. Part of that relates to improving teacher recruitment and retention. It is not just northern schools where we want to see progress; we want to see progress in midlands engine schools and—dare I say it—schools in the east of England.
Informal European Council
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Before I turn to the European Council, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen as she marks her sapphire jubilee today. It is testimony to Her Majesty’s selfless devotion to the nation that she is marking becoming our first monarch to reign for sixty-five years not with any special celebration, but instead by getting on with the job to which she has dedicated her life. On behalf of the whole country, I am proud to offer Her Majesty our humble thanks for a lifetime of extraordinary service. Long may she continue to reign over us all.
Turning to last week’s informal European Council in Malta, Britain is leaving the European Union but we are not leaving Europe, and a global Britain that stands tall in the world will be a Britain that remains a good friend and ally to all our European partners. So at this summit we showed how Britain will continue to play a leading role in Europe long after we have left the EU, in particular through our contribution to the challenge of managing mass migration; through our special relationship with America; and through the new and equal partnership that we want to build between the EU and an independent, self-governing, global Britain. Let me take each point in turn.
First, on migration, the discussion focused on the route from Libya across the central Mediterranean. As I have argued, we need a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach, and that is exactly what the Council agreed. That includes working hard in support of an inclusive political settlement to stabilise Libya, which will help not only to tackle migration flows, but to counter terrorism. It means working to reduce the pull factors that encourage people to risk their lives and building the capacity of the Libyans to return migrants to their own shores, treat them with dignity and help them return home. It means looking beyond Libya and moving further upstream, including by urgently implementing the EU’s external investment plan to help create more opportunities in migrants’ home countries and by helping genuine refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. It also means better distinguishing between economic migrants and refugees, swiftly returning those who have no right to remain and thereby sending out a deterrence message to others thinking of embarking on perilous journeys. The Council agreed action in all those areas.
Britain is already playing a leading role in the region and at the summit I announced further steps, including additional support for the Libyan coastguard and more than £30 million of new aid for the most vulnerable refugees across Greece, the Balkans, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Sudan and Libya. Britain is also setting up an £8 million special protection fund to keep men, women and children in the Mediterranean region safe from trafficking, sexual violence and labour exploitation as part of our commitment to tackle modern slavery. The Council agreed with my call that we should do everything possible to deter this horrific crime, including by introducing tough penalties for those who trade in human misery and by working together to secure the necessary evidence for prosecutions that can put these criminals behind bars, where they belong.
Turning to America, I opened a discussion on engaging the new Administration, and I was able to relay the conversation I had with President Trump at the White House about the important history of co-operation between the United States and the countries of Europe. In particular, I confirmed that the President had declared his 100% commitment to NATO as the cornerstone of our security in the west. I also made it clear, however, that every country needed to share the burden and play its full part, meeting the NATO target of spending 2% on defence. It is only by investing properly in our defence that we can ensure we are properly equipped to keep our people safe.
I was also able to relay my discussions with President Trump on the importance of maintaining the sanctions regime on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine, and I very much welcome the strong words last week from the new US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, in confirming America’s continued support for these sanctions.
Of course, there are some areas where we disagree with the approach of the new Administration, and we should be clear about those disagreements and about the values that underpin our response to the global challenges we face. I also argued at the Council, however, that we should engage patiently and constructively with America as a friend and ally—an ally that has helped to guarantee the longest period of peace that Europe has ever known. For we should be clear that the alternative of division and confrontation would only embolden those who would do us harm, wherever they may be.
Finally turning to Brexit, European leaders welcomed the clarity of the objectives we set out for the negotiation ahead. They warmly welcomed our ambition to build a new partnership between Britain and the EU that is in the interests of both sides. They also welcomed the recognition that we in Britain want to see a strong and successful EU, because that is in our interests and the interests of the whole world.
On the issue of acquired rights, the general view was that we should reach an agreement that applied equally to the other 27 member states and the UK, which is why we think a unilateral decision from the UK is not the right way forward. As I have said before, however, EU citizens living in the UK make a vital contribution to our economy and our society, and without them we would be poorer and our public services weaker. We will therefore make securing a reciprocal agreement that will guarantee their status a priority as soon as the negotiations begin, and I want to see this agreed as soon as possible, because that is in everyone’s interests.
Our European partners now want to get on with the negotiations. So do I, and so does this House, which last week voted by a majority of 384 in support of the Government triggering article 50. There are, of course, further stages for the Bill in Committee and in the other place, and it is right that this process should be completed properly, but the message is clear to all: this House has spoken, and now is not the time to obstruct the democratically expressed wishes of the British people. It is time to get on with leaving the EU and building an independent, self-governing, global Britain. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and for advance sight of it, and I echo her sentiments towards Her Majesty. I wish her Majesty well at this auspicious time in her life and thank her for her service.
The Prime Minister has used this curiously named “informal” EU summit to press the EU’s NATO members to fulfil their defence expenditure requirements. The last Labour Government consistently spent over 2% on defence. The Tory Government’s cuts since 2010 have demoralised our armed forces, cut spending by 11% in the last Parliament and reduced the size of the Army from 82,000 to 77,000. As well as making these cuts, they have changed the way the 2% spending is calculated. Given that she is lecturing other countries, will she tell the House why her Government changed the accounting rules to include aspects of expenditure not previously included? The Defence Committee in 2015 noted that the Government were only meeting the 2% figure by including areas, such as pensions, not previously included. It went on to say that
“this ‘redefinition’ of defence expenditure undermines, to some extent, the credibility of the Government’s assertion that the 2% figure represents a…increase”.
To add to the disarray, this weekend, The Sunday Times uncovered a series of equipment failures and bungled procurement deals, including apparently ordering light tanks that are too big to fit in the aircraft that are supposed to be transporting them. This really does cast some doubt on the Government’s competence in this area, so perhaps it is not such a good idea to go lecturing other countries on defence spending and procurement.
Labour has long been concerned about poor planning and short-sightedness by the Ministry of Defence and long delays in delivering projects. The extent to which the MOD appears to have lost control of some of its biggest equipment projects is worrying, and it would be nice to know what action the Prime Minister is taking on this matter.
Earlier today, the Prime Minister had a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. Did she make it clear to him that, as is often mentioned in this House and by the Prime Minister herself, there is continued opposition by the British Government to the illegal settlements being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Labour has been unequivocal about the fact that it is within this Government’s gift to guarantee the rights of EU citizens to remain in this country. There is no need to wait for negotiations to begin; the Government could do it now. This is not a question about Brexit; it is a question about human rights, democracy and decency towards people who have lived and worked in this country. Many families have had children born here, and I think we must guarantee their rights. Many of those people have been left in limbo, and are very deeply concerned and stressed. Did the Prime Minister discuss this issue with her European counterparts, and will she today provide those people with the clarity and assurances that they both need and, I believe, deserve?
We are clear that we accept the mandate of the British people to leave the European Union, but we will not accept this Government turning this country into a bargain basement tax haven on the shores of Europe.
Finally, we welcome the additional £30 million that the Government have committed to the refugee crisis across Europe. Last week at Prime Minister’s Question Time, the Prime Minister said that the UK had resettled 10,000 refugees from Syria. According to the House of Commons Library, we have resettled less than half that figure—4,414. There is an ongoing and grave human tragedy that has resulted in more than 5,000 people drowning in the Mediterranean last year and 254 already this year, and we are only at the beginning of February.
I believe that we should also note the phenomenal commitment of the Government and people of Greece to the huge number of refugees in their country, and the difficulties they are having in supporting them. What conversations did she have with her Greek counterpart on this important matter? I also say to the Prime Minister that, even post-Brexit, this is an issue that will affect every country in Europe. It is the biggest humanitarian crisis that we have ever faced in the world, and we will need to co-ordinate as a continent to address this issue with all the humanity and resources that our collective values determine should be deployed towards it.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman opened his remarks by referring to what I think he called the “curiously named” informal Council. It is the convention that at every new presidency—there are two new presidencies each year—the presidency holds an informal Council in which people are able to talk about a number of issues looking ahead to the formalities of the Council. There we are; that is what happens; and that is what we were doing in Valletta.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to my meeting earlier today with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and I have to say that this was not a subject for discussion at the European Union Council last week. However, I have made the UK Government’s position on settlements clear, and I continued to do that today.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of UK nationals. As he said, it is absolutely right that we value the contribution that EU citizens are making here in the United Kingdom—their contribution to our communities, our economy, our society, and, as I have said, to our public services—but I think it is also right that we ensure that the rights of UK citizens living in other European states are maintained. It is clear from the conversations that I have had with a number of European leaders about this issue that they think that it should be dealt with in the round as a matter of reciprocity, but, as was made plain by, for example, the conversations that I had with Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain, we are all very clear about the fact that we want to give reassurance to people as early as possible in the negotiations.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the issue of refugees, and about people drowning in the Mediterranean. Of course the loss of life that we have seen has been terrible, as is the continuing loss of life that we are seeing despite the best efforts of the United Kingdom: the Royal Navy and Border Force have been there, acting with others to protect and rescue people. That is why it is so important that we stop people making that perilous journey in the first place and risking their lives, and that is why the work that we discussed at the EU Council in Valletta on Friday is so important.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about our relationship with Greece. We continue to support Greece: we have a number of experts providing support on the ground, giving the Greeks real help with the task of dealing with the refugees. I made a commitment that we would want to continue to co-operate with our European partners on this issue after leaving the European Union, because it is indeed not confined to the European Union; it affects us as a whole, throughout Europe.
The right hon. Gentleman made a number of comments about defence. Indeed, he devoted a fair amount of his response to the whole question of defence. At one point, he said that the fact that we were spending 2% on defence cast doubt on the competence of the UK Government in matters relating to it. I think this is the same right hon. Gentleman who said that he wanted to send out our nuclear submarines without any missiles on them. You couldn’t make it up.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I think that, for most states, the main business of the Council was yet another attempt to tackle the problem of mass migration from the middle east and north Africa, which is destabilising the politics of every European country. Will my right hon. Friend confirm—in fact, I think she just has—that, as Prime Minister, she will play as active a part as she did when she was Home Secretary in working with the other European Union countries to tackle the problem? Otherwise we shall have a continuing problem of attempts to come to this country.
If we are going to start returning refugees to the coast of north Africa, may I ask whether any progress is being made in the efforts that my right hon. Friend was making when she was Home Secretary to find somewhere on the other side of the Mediterranean where Europeans can finance and organise reception centres and refugees and applicants can be processed in a civilised way, and where it can be ensured that only genuine asylum seekers are let into this country?
The Prime Minister
I can give my right hon. and learned Friend those reassurances. As he has said, this issue will continue to affect us, and to affect us all. It is not confined to the borders of the European Union. We will continue to co-operate with our European partners on this important matter while we remain in the EU and beyond.
Of course, as my right hon. and learned Friend indicated, one of the concerns about returning people to north Africa has related to the conditions to which they would be returned. That is why the EU has made efforts in Niger to establish some centres to try to ensure that people do not progress through to Libya and attempt to cross the Mediterranean, and it is also why we referred in the Council conclusions to our support for the Italian initiative. The Italians have worked with the Government of National Accord in Libya to secure an agreement that they will do some work there, in particular to ensure that people can be returned to suitable conditions, and we will support that.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
May I begin by joining the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Labour party in extending to the Queen the best wishes of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the occasion of her sapphire jubilee? We wish her a very pleasant day with her family, and many further jubilees to come.
I thank the Prime Minister for giving me advance sight of her short statement about what was the first European Union informal summit since she published her White Paper on Brexit. It was also the first meeting since she met colleagues in the Joint Ministerial Committee of the British-Irish Council, and, of course, the first since her visit to Dublin.
As we have already established, the Prime Minister wants no hard borders on these islands; she wants the free movement of peoples on these islands and the safeguarding and boosting of trade on these islands, and we on these Benches wholeheartedly support these aims. But given the great importance that the Prime Minister gives in the White Paper to the Union of the United Kingdom and what we are told is a partnership of equals, she will surely have briefed her European colleagues while she was in Malta about the progress of negotiations with the other Governments on these islands. So did she confirm that she will work with the Scottish Government to secure continuing membership of the European single market? Did she tell her European colleagues that we value EU citizens living in our country, that their presence will be guaranteed, and that she is prepared to learn the lessons from Canada, from Australia and from Switzerland, where it is perfectly possible to have different immigration priorities and policies within a unitary state? Did the Prime Minister remind European colleagues that in Scotland we voted by 62% to remain in the European Union and that only one Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency voted for her Brexit legislation?
We are getting to a stage where warm words from the Government are not enough. It is the member state that is supposed to negotiate on all of our behalves within the European Union. Scotland did not warrant a single mention in the Prime Minister’s statement. She now has the opportunity to tell us: what Scottish priorities did she raise at the European summit? Did she raise any at all?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right that I have confirmed our commitment to the common travel area; I have been discussing that with the Taoiseach, and officials continued those discussions. The right hon. Gentleman referenced EU citizens; as I said in my statement and in response to the Leader of the Opposition, in the United Kingdom we all value the contribution that EU citizens have made to the United Kingdom—to our society, to our economy, to our public services. We want to be able to give them the reassurance at as early a stage as possible of their continuation. As the UK Government, of course we have a duty to consider UK citizens living in other EU states as well and, as I have said, it has been clear that there is good will on all sides in relation to this matter, but there is an expectation that this will be considered in the round and that we can look at EU citizens here and UK citizens in other member states.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked a number of questions about what I was putting forward to the European leaders of the 27. Of course, what I was putting forward was the views of the United Kingdom. It is the UK that will be negotiating; we listen, we take account of, and we incorporate views of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but when I am sitting there around the EU Council, I am doing so as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Did my right hon. Friend observe that after she had spoken to the 27 they were far more realistic, particularly with respect to the question of defence and NATO, than they had been beforehand, and in particular than in respect of Donald Tusk’s letter to the 27, which he sent them on 31 January?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is a growing recognition among the member states of the European Union that within NATO it is important to meet the 2% commitment for expenditure on defence. I am pleased to say that a small number of other European member states have already reached that 2% level, but others are actively moving towards that 2%—most notably, perhaps, some of the Baltic states.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Last spring, in pointing out that we export more to Ireland than to China and almost twice as much to Belgium as to India, the Prime Minister said:
“It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets.”
Can she therefore give the House an assurance that in the negotiations she will seek to safeguard tariff and barrier-free access to European markets for British businesses, if necessary by remaining in the customs union if that is the only way to ensure this?
The Prime Minister
Nobody is talking about replacing European Union trade with trade around the rest of the world. What we are talking about is expanding our trade across the world so that we have a good trading relationship with the European Union but are also able to sign up to new trade agreements with other parts of the world. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a number of countries are already talking to us about such potential trade agreements, and we will do what is necessary to ensure that we can expand trade around the world, including with the European Union.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is the Prime Minister as shocked as I am that the EU, which is bound by treaty to the rule of law and human decency, is unable to offer a simple reassurance to all British citizens living on the continent that they will not face eviction?
The Prime Minister
I think that I am more hopeful than my right hon. Friend, in that I have every confidence that we will be able to address this issue as an early discussion within the negotiations. I would have liked to be able to address it outside the negotiations but, sadly, some member states did not wish to do that. However, I think that the goodwill is there to give that reassurance to EU citizens here and to UK citizens in Europe.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On the customs union, the Prime Minister has said that she insists on being outside the common external tariff. If the UK, France and Ireland all have different tariffs on goods coming in from outside, how will she guarantee to have barrier-free goods passing between those different countries? A lot of people cannot see how we can be outside the common external tariff and have barrier-free trade. If it comes to that crunch, will she agree to go back into the customs union and be part of the common external tariff in order to have barrier-free trade?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is approaching this, as a number of others have done, as a binary issue between customs union membership and having a good trade agreement with the European Union. I do not see it as such. We want to be able to negotiate free trade agreements with other countries around the world, but our membership of parts of the customs union—this is not just a single in or out question—currently prevents us from doing those free trade agreements. I am confident that we can achieve the sort of free trade agreement with the European Union that is in our interest and that of the European Union and that gives us the ability to trade across borders that we want in the future.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
In her statement, my right hon. Friend talked about the new and equal partnership that we wish to build between the EU and an independent, self-governing, global Britain. She also pointed out the importance of co-operation on issues such as migration from Libya. Were there any discussions on, and what contemplation is she giving to, Britain’s continuing de facto involvement in the common foreign and security policy and the common security and defence policy after Brexit?
The Prime Minister
I can reassure my hon. Friend that this is one of the issues we are looking at in relation to the negotiations that are coming up. In the speech that I made at Lancaster House two and a half weeks ago, I was very clear that we recognised the importance of the security and defence co-operation that we have with our European partners and that we wanted to continue that co-operation.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for giving me advance sight of her statement. I should also like to associate myself and my colleagues with her congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her sapphire jubilee. During the Prime Minister’s brief walkabout with Angela Merkel—during which I assume she offered her a state visit—did she raise the issue of unaccompanied child refugees? Will she now confirm that the Government will not break the promise, made by the House nine months ago under the terms of the Dubs amendment, of a safe future for those children, and that the scheme will remain open and in use for the rest of this Parliament in order to offer safe haven to at least 3,000 unaccompanied child refugees?
The Prime Minister
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are indeed putting into practice our commitment to give support to child refugees who have already made it across into Europe and to bring them to the UK. Many child refugees have already been brought to the UK under that scheme.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that there can be no security for Europe without the intimate involvement of the United States of America, will my right hon. Friend please redouble her efforts to persuade our continental friends—and, indeed, our friends on the Opposition Benches—that, whatever they feel about an individual President’s personal qualities, the way to proceed has to be to reach out to him, to respect his office and to keep strengthening the alliance?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is right. One of the themes at the informal Council was the recognition of the role that America has played in supporting Europe’s defence and security and of the need to engage fully with the American Administration. That is what we are doing and what I encourage others to do.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I welcome what the Prime Minister said about the importance of maintaining the sanctions regime on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine. Will she reassure the House that we will, where necessary, continue to agree such sanctions with our European partners once we leave the European Union?
The Prime Minister
I reassure the hon. Lady that as long we are members of the European Union we will continue to encourage other member states to maintain the sanctions. There are several foreign policy areas, such as on the security of Europe, on which we will want to co-operate in future with our European Union partners. Once we are outside the EU, we will not have a vote around the table on the sanctions regime, but we will continue to make our views clear.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Contrary to the rather negative comments from the Labour party, was my right hon. Friend yet again heartened by Germany? Over the weekend, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble said in Der Tagesspiegel that there is no question of the United Kingdom being punished for leaving the European Union and that London remains the heart of the global finance industry. What influence does my right hon. Friend think Germany will have over the negotiations?
Mr Speaker
I am greatly impressed by the range of the hon. Gentleman’s reading matter.
The Prime Minister
I was aware of Wolfgang Schäuble’s comments—although I cannot claim to have read that particular publication—and it was an important point. As we move forward towards the triggering of the negotiations, we are now seeing a genuine willingness on both sides to discuss the future EU-UK relationship—the new partnership that we want—and a recognition of the role that the UK plays in Europe. Of course, Germany will be one of the remaining 27 member states, but I look forward to having further conversations with our German counterparts on the importance that they place on the City of London and the UK’s trading relationship with Europe.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has guaranteed Parliament a vote on the final deal between the UK and the EU. Will she confirm that that commitment applies both to the article 50 divorce negotiations and to the free trade agreement that she hopes to negotiate? What happens if Parliament says no to the terms of either deal?
The Prime Minister
We see the negotiations not as being separate but as going together. The arrangement that we aim to negotiate is a deal that will cover both the exit arrangements and the future free trade agreement that we will have the European Union. I have every confidence that we will be able to get a good deal agreed with the EU in relation to both those matters, including our future co-operation not just on trade but on other matters, and will be able to bring a good deal here for Parliament to vote on.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I must confess that I am still reeling from the novelty of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) advocating increased defence expenditure. I warmly welcome him to the clan—we will not tell the Stop the War coalition about his newfound enthusiasm.
The sooner we can give EU residents here the reassurance that they seek, the better. Will the Prime Minister tell us which of our EU partners are so reluctant to offer reciprocal rights to Her Majesty’s subjects who reside in their countries?
The Prime Minister
I think the whole House was somewhat surprised by the Leader of the Opposition’s contribution in relation to defence spending, but we will wait to see whether that is followed up by commitments in other debates.
On the question of EU nationals, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we give that reassurance as early as possible. It is not a question of not offering reciprocal rights; it is that some member states did not want to negotiate part of what they saw as the fuller negotiations until article 50 has been triggered. It is article 50 that will trigger our ability to discuss the matter.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Prime Minister’s warm words of congratulation to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her sapphire jubilee?
Given this country’s enormous contribution to the defence of Europe and, indeed, the west generally, and given that we are one of the world’s biggest contributors to humanitarian and international aid, may I urge the Prime Minister to use every opportunity in discussions with our European friends and partners to reiterate the need for them also to step up to the plate on both those vital issues, which are just as important as some of the other issues that we are discussing?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I give the commitment that I will continue to express to my European colleagues the importance of their actually stepping up to the plate and spending the requisite amount of money on defence. It is important that Europe shows that commitment.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement on the informal Council. In particular, I welcome the £30 million-worth of new aid for refugees. With recent reports of children, in particular, returning to the Jungle camp area in Calais, did she have an opportunity to discuss it with her French counterpart? What more can be done to prevent children from returning to that area in the false hope of expecting to come to the UK?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises an important issue, and today I asked the Home Office to look at the particular concern that people, including children, are now returning to the camps at Calais. Obviously, the action that will be taken within France is a matter for the French Government, who share the concern about the possibility of migrants returning to the camps at Calais. Obviously, the French Government have already acted in relation to that matter. We will continue to operate the schemes that we have been operating, working with the French Government, to ensure that those who have a right to be in the United Kingdom are able to come here.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
What discussions did the Prime Minister have in Malta on trade deals? She will of course be aware that all Members of the European Parliament will be able to vote on the EU-Canada trade deal, but her Government have gone back on their promise to hold a debate on the Floor of the House. Given the prominence given to the comprehensive economic and trade agreement in her very brief Brexit White Paper as an example of what we can expect from future trade deals, why are the Government running so scared of parliamentary scrutiny? This Government are not about taking back control for the people of the whole country; they are about taking back control for themselves.
The Prime Minister
The CETA deal, as I understand it, will be discussed today in European Committee B, of which the hon. Lady is a member. She will therefore be able to contribute to that debate.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) on the issue of acquired rights, which countries are standing out against an immediate deal based on reciprocity before the start of Brexit negotiations? Do those countries include Germany?
The Prime Minister
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), the issue is whether that should be part of the formal negotiations. It has been made clear that there are those who believe it should be part of the negotiations, and therefore we will be able to consider this issue with our European colleagues once article 50 has been triggered.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
What did the Prime Minister say to her fellow European leaders about her assessment of the Trump-Putin relationship, and specifically about Russian interference in western democracies, including our own?
The Prime Minister
Concern has been expressed both at this Council meeting and at others about the role that Russia is playing, in a number of ways, with its interference.
The Prime Minister
Yes, Lady Nugee, by me. It is a matter of continuing concern and will remain a subject of discussion.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend think that, in her discussions with our 27 EU partners, we will be able to negotiate a reciprocal right for EU citizens living here and for British citizens living abroad sooner than the two-year limit set by article 50?
The Prime Minister
What I want to see is an agreement about the position of EU citizens and UK citizens at an early part of the negotiations, so that we can give them that reassurance up front and so that it will not be necessary to keep that agreement with the other 27 member states as part of the final deal. We need to have that up front at an early stage, so that we can give people the reassurance that they not only need but deserve.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
On 15 July last year, the Prime Minister pledged that she would not trigger article 50 until she had an agreed “UK approach” backed by the devolved Administrations. Does she intend to keep her word?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear: we are having a number of engagements with the various devolved Administrations, taking their issues into account. We are currently, as we agreed at the last Joint Ministerial Committee plenary session, intensifying the discussions with the Scottish Government on the issues raised in the Scottish White Paper. The decision to trigger article 50 is one that this House has been very clear should be taken. This House voted overwhelmingly on Second Reading that that should be the step we take, and we will be doing so on behalf of the UK.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I call Sir Desmond Swayne. [Interruption.] He is a very good-natured fellow but he was chuntering at me at precisely the wrong moment. We will forgive him. I thought he was standing—
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I was about to go to an appointment, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman now has the opportunity of an appointment with the House. I would be astonished if he has no view to express—it would be a first!
Sir Desmond Swayne
Unsought though it is, I am delighted to have the opportunity to ask: has there been any discussion hitherto about the assets of the European Union to which we might have some claim after 40 years of being a major contributor?
The Prime Minister
I can assure my right hon. Friend that in looking at the future negotiations, we will be looking at every angle of the relationship with the European Union.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I welcome the €200 million that has been pledged for the Mediterranean crisis? As the right hon. Lady knows, 3,800 people have travelled from Libya to Italy since 1 January. I ask her to be very careful with regard to the Libyan coastguard, because there is strong evidence that it is working with people smugglers to allow these boats to leave Libyan waters. How much of that money will actually be used to counter the work of the criminal gangs?
The Prime Minister
The work we are doing with the Libyan coastguard is of course about training its people to be able to do the job that we all expect them to do and that many of them want to be able to do. Separately from that, we will be working to enhance our ability to work across borders and through international agreements, using things such as joint investigation teams, to ensure that we are catching these criminal gangs. We have put some extra effort into this. I think we have to put even more effort into it in the future.
Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I welcome this statement and, in particular, my right hon. Friend’s comments about refugees. Does she agree that the work we are doing, both through our development budget and through our armed forces, to underpin the fragile states of Lebanon and Jordan is absolutely pivotal and is vastly more than is being done by the rest of Europe?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the support we have given. We took a very simple view that we can support more people who have fled from Syria by giving them humanitarian aid and support in the region than we can by bringing them to the UK. We will be bringing, and are bringing, vulnerable people—in particular, vulnerable Syrian refugees—here to the UK, but we continue to believe, as the second biggest bilateral donor to the region, that this is important as well. I continue to commend the work of Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan in the support that they are giving to the significant number of refugees they are supporting.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Given President Trump’s talk about renegotiating the Iran nuclear deal, did the Prime Minister have any opportunity to discuss, particularly with her French and German counterparts, how we would respond should the President pursue this rather foolish route?
The Prime Minister
We continue to believe that the Iran nuclear deal was an important step forward and an important contribution to stability in the region. We continue to support it.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Mr Speaker, you will know that the status of EU nationals affects not only some of my constituents but my family and friends personally. The Prime Minister has given me, this House and the country her personal guarantee that she will seek an early agreement on this issue. I am putting my entire trust in the Prime Minister to honour that promise. Getting an early agreement will, in my opinion, be a decisive mark of her negotiating skills and leadership qualities as our Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the trust he is placing in me. I reassure him not only of my good intentions in this matter but of the number of my European colleagues to whom I have spoken about this issue who also recognise its importance, not only for UK citizens living in their countries but for their citizens living here in the United Kingdom. We all want to be able to give that reassurance to people at an early stage.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On Russia, the Prime Minister made a big point about the fact that she was communicating with our European counterparts about President Trump’s intentions on sanctions. Over the weekend, though, President Trump made a series of bizarre statements about relations with Russia, leading one Republican senator to say:
“I don’t understand what the President’s position is on Russia”.
Does the Prime Minister understand what it is, and has she communicated that to our European partners?
The Prime Minister
From the discussions I have had so far, I think all the indications are that President Trump feels the need and wants to engage more with Russia than has happened in the past. When I spoke to the Republican party in Philadelphia, the message I gave was that I think it is right to engage, but my message in relation to Russia is to engage, but beware.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. Paragraph 4 of the conclusions talks about tackling radicalisation, extremism and terrorism in Libya. Recent reports from the United States say that there are 6,000 Daesh militants in Libya; is that figure correct? How effectively are the Government of National Accord, which is the organisation we support, and the organisation led by General Haftar working to defeat Daesh?
The Prime Minister
Obviously we are doing all we can and working with all parties that we can in relation to the defeat of Daesh. My hon. Friend understands the issue very well. He will know that while steps are being taken in other places—for example, in Iraq—to take military action against Daesh and to have an impact on it there, it is important that we do not see it able to regroup and come forward in other parts of the world where perhaps there is a vacuum that would enable it to do that. As he mentioned, underlying it all is the fact that we need to deal with the ideology. It is not just about the people at the moment; it is about dealing with the ideology. That is where the work to deal with radicalisation is so important.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Prime Minister answer part of the question on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) pressed her? Will she confirm that Parliament must give its consent in advance to whatever the new proposed relationship will be, deal or no deal?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear that Parliament will have a vote on the deal. This is a matter that is going to be discussed in some detail tomorrow, when the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union will be able to set out in more detail than in response to a single question what the situation will be.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Further to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I am sure the Prime Minister shares my concern about Iran’s ballistic and cruise missile tests on 29 January. What discussions did she have with European partners about how we can work with the Trump Administration to preserve and, if anything, strengthen the Iranian nuclear deal?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about the ballistic missile tests that took place. The overwhelming message that we took from the informal Council in relation to working with America on a number of issues, including not only Russia and Ukraine but Iran, was that it is important for us to engage directly with the American Administration on these matters and, obviously, make clear the positions that we hold in Europe.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
According to press reports, the Prime Minister’s master plan of being a post-Brexit bridge between Europe and the US was not well received. Does she really think it is in the interests of the British state to be increasingly isolated from Europe and in the hands of a President who is taking the United States on a very dangerous journey?
The Prime Minister
I have made it clear in a number of my responses today that it is important that the United States and Europe work together and co-operate on the many challenges that we share.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, while it is welcome that the Calais Jungle was dismantled last autumn and that this country did the right thing by vulnerable children, it is very important that we work with the French to prevent the exploitation of children, target the traffickers, and, in order to ensure that the Jungle does not reappear this spring, take full action before the first tent is pitched?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. With his particular constituency interest, he is very aware of the issues around migrants being in the camp at Calais and the pressure that that puts on Dover, particularly when people are trying to get through to the United Kingdom. We will make every effort to work with the French Government to ensure that we do not see a return to the sort of camps that we saw last year in Calais before they were cleared.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Is the Prime Minister disappointed that the mantra of nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed has been adopted as far as EU citizens in all our countries are concerned? Is it not possible for her to have an informal letter with the Prime Ministers of Spain and France to agree informally, as soon as it is technically possible after the start of article 50 negotiations, to bring in that reciprocality?
The Prime Minister
It is not the case that people are saying that, in this particular issue, it can only be agreed at the end of the deal when everything else is agreed. What they have said is that they do not believe that negotiations and discussions on it should not start until article 50 has triggered the formal negotiations. I have every expectation, from the good will that I have seen from others, that it will be possible to get an early agreement on this matter to give people the reassurance that they need.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
May I thank the Prime Minister on behalf of my constituents for raising the 2% defence spending issue, because it makes them safer? If the Greeks can do it, why can’t the rest?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The four member states who do it are the United Kingdom, Greece, Poland and Estonia. I am pleased to say that some of the rest are making every effort to do it as well, and are progressing well towards the 2% target.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I remember as a Back Bencher in Department of Trade and Industry questions that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) had No. 1, and I rather irreverently called out, “Get in there, Gapes.” Now is his opportunity. I call Mr Mike Gapes.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has referred to her meeting with President Trump, but she has not mentioned her meeting with President Erdogan. Did she take the opportunity to inform other European Union leaders about those discussions, the 3 million Syrian refugees that Turkey is having to take and the support, or lack of it, that President Erdogan feels has come from the EU so far? Did she also discuss with them the customs union, of which Turkey is a member?
The Prime Minister
As we were discussing the issue of migration, I was able to make reference to the EU-Turkey deal—indeed, a number of references were made to it—which has seen the number of migrants moving from Turkey to Greece being reduced significantly. When I was in Turkey, I commended the Turkish Government for the support that they have given to the 3 million refugees who are in Turkey.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I warmly welcome this Government’s commitment regularly to come before this House to update Members on the progress of EU-UK negotiations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the European Council statements are a perfect opportunity to update the House on the Prime Minister’s negotiations with EU national leaders after we trigger article 50?
The Prime Minister
The EU Council statements are given in response to business that is done at the EU Council. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be every opportunity for Parliament to be kept informed as we go through this process. There have already been 70 debates or statements on this issue in Parliament and 30 reviews by different parliamentary Committees on different aspects of Brexit. I think I can say that not a day has gone by since the referendum that this issue has not been discussed in this House in some shape or form.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Annette Street Primary School in my constituency is wonderfully diverse, as many new Scots have made Glasgow their home. Saqib from Annette Street says:
“There are lots of children from Annette Street that are from Europe. We want to know if they will have to leave or not.”
Saying “as soon as possible” is not a good enough answer for Saqib, Prime Minister. When we will actually know whether these children will get to stay in Scotland?
The Prime Minister
I repeat the answer that I have given to others: I expect to be able to deal with this issue in relation to those who are from the European Union and living here in the United Kingdom at an early stage in the negotiations. There is good will on all sides to be able to address the issue when the negotiations have been triggered because everybody understands the concern that people have about their future.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Might I ask the Prime Minister which are more important—Europeans in Britain or Brits in the EU?
The Prime Minister
It is not a question of which are more important. We recognise that there are people from European Union member states who have made their lives—for some, over a significant period of time—here in the United Kingdom. I also recognise that there are UK citizens who have made their lives in other European Union member states. I want all those people to be able to carry on living where they choose to live in the security of knowing that their future is determined and that the choice is up to them. I want to ensure that that opportunity and reassurance are given to all those people, and I hope and expect that we will be able do that at an early stage of the negotiations.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Prime Minister said that the other European Union member states welcomed the clarity of her objectives. Did she have any discussion with them about the realism of completing the substantive negotiations within 18 months?
The Prime Minister
I have every expectation—indeed, a number of comments have been made by others around Europe about the importance of ensuring this—that we can do this deal and complete these negotiations within the timescale set.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I can see that the Prime Minister is genuinely and sincerely disappointed not to have been able to reassure EU citizens ahead of the formal negotiations. In the light of the rapidly shifting landscape—for example, Trump’s divisive immigration policies and how that situation is making people in this country feel—if the deal with fellow nations is not done as early in the negotiation period as the Prime Minister would like, will she review it again and look at a unilateral agreement for those EU citizens?
The Prime Minister
I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend has shown for some considerable time on the position of EU citizens living here in the United Kingdom. I have every expectation, given the responses that I have had so far from other member states, that we will indeed be able to get that reassurance at an early stage. I want and intend to be able to reassure people from other EU member states who are living here in the United Kingdom, and I have every expectation that we will be able to get that reassurance at an early stage of the negotiations.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
In the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech, she put on her wish list an entirely new form of membership of the customs union: an associate membership. Did she raise the idea with the other members of the European Council this weekend, and quite what did they make of it?
The Prime Minister
What I actually did in my Lancaster House speech was to say that I had not come to a firm decision as to whether the future relationship should be an associate membership or some other sort of relationship with the customs union. I was clear that we need to be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries around the world.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
My constituency contains proportionately more EU nationals than any other, and they say two things to me—that they deeply want their rights in this country to be reassured, and that they understand that it is vital that this country is the kind of country that also stands up for the interests of its citizens abroad. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a test of national character and that although the politics may be hard, it is the only option we can reasonably pursue?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. We should be clear that we have a duty to consider UK citizens who have chosen to make their life outside the UK and live in other European Union member states, as well as having a duty to consider EU citizens living here in the United Kingdom. That is why I expect that we will, at an early stage, be able to give reassurance to both.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
With how many EU leaders at this Council or earlier Councils since 23 June did the Prime Minister discuss the UK staying in the single market post-Brexit?
The Prime Minister
What I have been clear about with all the European leaders I have spoken to is that what we want when we leave the European Union is a good free trade arrangement with the member states of the European Union, in the form of the European Union. That is what we want, and that is what we will be working for.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The summit began with the German Chancellor admonishing the Prime Minister for the threat to undercut our European neighbours—the alternative economic model the Prime Minister talked about at Lancaster House. Could she confirm that she is still threatening to cut corporation tax in a race to the bottom, and could she tell us whether she is worried that the manner of the negotiations is damaging our reputation abroad?
The Prime Minister
What I set out in the Lancaster House speech were my 12 objectives for the negotiations. Within that was a new free trade agreement with the European Union and a belief that we have every opportunity and every possibility of getting the arrangement that we want for the future strength of the UK economy. What I also said very clearly was that we would not be wanting to sign up to a bad deal for the UK. I think the UK public want to hear from their Prime Minister that we are not willing to sign up to a bad deal, and will make every effort and expect to get the best deal possible for the United Kingdom.
Mr Speaker
Order. Was the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling present at the start of the statement?
Tom Tugendhat
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the UK is absolutely at the heart of Europe in defence terms? Did she get agreement from partners at the European Council that our alliance with countries such as Denmark and Estonia very much demonstrates that we are far more influential in some of the other areas of European policy than is often recognised?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Of course, the role that the UK plays in the defence of Europe as a whole is recognised widely across Europe, and I have been very clear that we want to continue to co-operate on matters such as defence with our European allies once we have left the EU.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
The Prime Minister indicated that she speaks on behalf of the whole United Kingdom, which she will know is a differentiated Union, with Scotland having its own legal and education system. What issues, therefore, did she specifically raise in relation to Scotland’s requirements?
The Prime Minister
I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the answer I will give him is the same answer that I gave earlier: when I go into the European Council, and when we go into these negotiations, the European Union will be negotiating with the UK, and the Government will be negotiating on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly mentioned people trafficking and sexual exploitation in her statement. Did she give any reassurances, or did she get any reassurances from her European partners, on the UK’s continued membership of the means of exchanging information, such as Europol?
The Prime Minister
As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, that will be a matter, of course, for the negotiations, but as I said in my Lancaster House speech, one of the objectives that we will set is our continuing co-operation on justice and security matters.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It has been reported that, at the EU Council meeting on Friday, Angela Merkel, among other leaders, was less than impressed with the Prime Minister’s threat to turn the UK into a tax haven. Can the Prime Minister outline exactly what her EU counterparts said to her regarding that and whether she intends to take that threat off the table?
The Prime Minister
As I said in response to an earlier question on this matter, what I have done is very clearly to set out—I think it is absolutely right, and this clarity has been welcomed by other European leaders—that we expect to get a good deal in our negotiations with the European Union, and that includes a good deal on a free trade agreement, and we will not be prepared to sign up to a bad deal.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
My constituents Mr and Mrs Regan came to see me on Saturday about their son, who has a Greek wife and who lives and works in the middle east. After Brexit, they plan to come and live in the UK. Will their daughter-in-law have to apply for a settlement visa? I said I could not answer that question and that I would ask someone who could, so could the Prime Minister answer it for me?
The Prime Minister
I take it from the hon. Gentleman’s question that he is talking about somebody who is currently living outside the United Kingdom. The arrangements in relation to the movement of EU citizens into the UK from elsewhere after Brexit are, of course, matters that the Home Office is currently looking at, and they will be subject to discussion by Parliament.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement on the importance of EU nationals, but does she understand the damage that is caused when we continue to use EU nationals, including those working in highly skilled areas and STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—businesses, as bargaining chips in our negotiations?
The Prime Minister
We want to be able to provide reassurance to people who are EU citizens living here in the UK, and to provide that reassurance also to EU citizens living elsewhere in Europe. I remind the hon. Lady that during the Scottish independence referendum the First Minister told EU nationals that they would lose the right to stay here if the—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. All this finger-wagging at the Prime Minister is rather unseemly. It does not constitute statesmanship of the highest order. The question has been asked, the Prime Minister is going to answer, and that answer must be heard with courtesy.
The Prime Minister
The First Minister said that they would lose the right to stay here if the EU did not allow an independent Scotland to rejoin, and of course the EU made it very clear that Scotland could not consider that it was going to get automatic membership of the European Union.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Were there any discussions at the Council about reports of the likely appointment by President Trump of Mr Ted Malloch as his ambassador to the European Union? Would such an appointment cause concern to the Prime Minister, since Mr Malloch has reportedly likened the European Union to the Soviet Union?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear that it is in the interests of the UK to have a continuing strong European Union, and that is a point that I have made to the American Administration.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My wife is an EU national, and unlike the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), neither she nor I have any faith in this Government doing the right thing unless we see actions on the rights of EU nationals rather than so-called warm words. If the Prime Minister sees herself as a leader, why does she not confirm the rights of EU nationals? That would also send a positive message to UK citizens living in other EU countries rather than their having to be a bargaining chip.
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear about my intentions in relation to EU nationals living here in the United Kingdom, but it is only right and proper that the United Kingdom Government should also have a care for the UK citizens living in the European Union.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
At the summit the Prime Minister announced support to allow up to 22,000 people to reunite with family members they have become separated from during their journey. Can she say a little more about what this means in practice and, in particular, whether it includes extra efforts towards reuniting refugees with family members in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
For those who are in member states of the European Union, the Dublin regulations obviously allow for reuniting families under certain circumstances. That is something we have been actively working on. Over the past year or so, we have actively worked with the French Government to increase the speed at which we are able to reunite children with families here in the United Kingdom, and we continue to do so.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We are constantly told by Ministers at the Dispatch Box that they are maintaining close relationships with countries that have dubious human rights records, allowing us to speak to those regimes as only friends can. Can the Prime Minister therefore tell us, given our extra-special, super-duper relationship with the US, what particular home truths on Trump’s outrageous plans she delivered on our behalf?
The Prime Minister
I was very clear about the UK’s position on a whole range of issues that we wish to discuss with the United States Administration. It was the special relationship that enabled us very quickly to ensure that UK citizens were not covered by the ban and the Executive order that President Trump brought into place in relation to the movement of people from seven countries into the United States.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I entirely concur with my right hon. Friend’s comments so far as the Queen is concerned, and add my congratulations to Her Majesty? I wonder whether any EU leader said to my right hon. Friend during her meeting how envious they are of having such a wonderful Head of State.
The Prime Minister
I seriously say to my hon. Friend that I regularly hear comments from other leaders, not just in Europe but in other parts of the world, about how impressive Her Majesty the Queen is, about her dedication to this country, and about how lucky we are to have her as our Head of State.
Points of Order
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. First, is it in order for the Prime Minister to refer to a Member of this House not by her own name, but by the name of her husband? Secondly, for the record, I have never been a lady, and it will take a great deal more than being married to a knight of the realm to make me one.
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not in any way intend to be disorderly in this House, and if the hon. Lady is concerned about the reference that I made to her, of course I will apologise for that. I have to say to her, though, that for the last 36 years I have been referred to by my husband’s name. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. No sedentary shrieking from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required. I have the matter in hand. Two points, very simply: first of all, I thank the Prime Minister for what she has just said. Secondly, in so far as there is any uncertainty on this matter, let me dispel that uncertainty. I do so from my own knowledge and on the professional advice of the Clerk. We refer in this Chamber to Members by their constituencies or, if they have a title—for example, shadow Minister—by their title. To refer to them by another name is not the right thing to do. But the Prime Minister has said what she has said, and I thank her for that. We will leave this matter there.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With great respect to your statement at the beginning of our proceedings, on behalf of the Commission, that the dress and composition of the Clerks sitting in this House should change forthwith after the recess, may I urge you to reconsider this and to consider whether the whole House ought to have an opportunity to address the matter before it is enacted?
Mr Speaker
Order. I will come to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) in a moment. First of all, in answer to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), let me say this. There are two elements to the announcement that I made at the start of proceedings. First, I referred to an extension of the range of people working within the Department of Chamber and Committee Services who should have the opportunity to serve at the Table in the Chamber. That constitutes an extension. In 2012, I introduced, with the agreement and co-operation of the Clerks’ department, a scheme that would give young and rising Clerks, who might otherwise have had to wait several years to serve at the Table, the opportunity to do so, being mentored in the process. So the first point I want to make to the hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he will agree with it, but I hope that it will contribute to the quality of the debate—is that I am merely extending a scheme that was introduced some years ago, which has done no harm to the House; which has not been objected to, to my knowledge, by any Member of the House, including the hon. Gentleman; and which has, in fact, been beneficial.
Secondly, on the matter of wigs, with which I think the hon. Gentleman is, at least in part, preoccupied, I say this to him. If he believes that the time of the House, either in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall, would be well spent by discussing this matter, he knows the avenues that are open to him.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). I was taken by surprise by your statement, which had the appearance—I hope that you will not misunderstand me—of an executive order. I was slightly surprised by that, for I had discussed the matter with the Clerk, who had done me the enormous courtesy of asking my view. I had declared informally that I thought that it was sensible to continue, because this is the High Court of Parliament, and I do think that the Clerks, dressed as they are, add to the dignity of the House. Some of us are not always capable of enhancing that, but the Clerks do so.
I have just read the letter from the Clerk of the House to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, in which he writes:
“Wigs have been worn by the Clerks at the Table for several centuries”.
So why change? The Clerk of the House states that some people take the view
“that the image they convey to those watching proceedings live or on television is of quaintness and of a chilling and antique formality”.
No constituent in Aldershot has ever expressed that view to me, and I think it would be appropriate, at some point, that we should discuss this rather than having an executive order.
Mr Speaker
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the hon. Member for The Cotswolds not just for raising their concerns, which they are perfectly entitled to do, but for their courtesy in giving me advance notice of their intention to do so.
I say, with courtesy and on advice, to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth)—and this is relevant to any response to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds—that this is a matter that can properly be decided by the Speaker. I thought it proper to consult my colleagues on the House of Commons Commission, the strategic governing body of the House, and I must tell both hon. Gentlemen that the House of Commons Commission agreed without objection to the two changes: the extension of those who serve at the Table and the removal of wigs.
Beyond that, I would say to the hon. Member for Aldershot—I tease him a tad here—that my understanding from one who has considerable knowledge and expertise in these matters is that, although certainly during the past couple of hundred years it has been the norm for Clerks serving at the Table to wear wigs, if he goes back some several centuries, which is normally an enjoyable sport to the hon. Gentleman, he will find that in fact Clerks did not wear wigs.
The final point I make to the hon. Member for Aldershot is that it was not an executive order; it was a request from the Clerks themselves, to which I and the members of the House of Commons Commission agreed. People are entitled to their views about it, but the idea that this was something I dreamed up and sought to impose against the will of the Clerks is 100% wrong. The hon. Gentleman might give the Clerk of the House some credit. The Clerk is open to constructive reform, and he has been the champion of it in this case.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you noted the deep concern expressed by Members from both sides of the House—the 170 who have signed early-day motion 890, and those who do not sign EDMs but have made their views known publicly during the past week—regarding offering the honour of a speech to both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall or, indeed, elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster? Will you tell us what approaches have been made to you, what discussions have taken place with the relevant authorities—the keyholders—for such an approach to go ahead, and whether there are any ways in which those of us who have deep concerns about President Trump’s comments can make that known to the responsible authorities?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will say this: an address by a foreign leader to both Houses of Parliament is not an automatic right; it is an earned honour. Moreover, there are many precedents for state visits to take place in our country that do not include an address to both Houses of Parliament. That is the first point.
The second point is that in relation to Westminster Hall, there are three keyholders—the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Speaker of the House of the Lords and the Lord Great Chamberlain. Ordinarily, we are able to work by consensus, and the Hall would be used for a purpose, such as an address or another purpose, by agreement of the three keyholders.
I must say to the hon. Gentleman, to all who have signed his early-day motion and to others with strong views about this matter on either side of the argument that before the imposition of the migrant ban, I would myself have been strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall, but after the imposition of the migrant ban by President Trump, I am even more strongly opposed to an address by President Trump in Westminster Hall.
So far as the Royal Gallery is concerned—again, I operate on advice—I perhaps do not have as strong a say in that matter. It is in a different part of the building, although customarily an invitation to a visiting leader to deliver an address there would be issued in the names of the two Speakers. I would not wish to issue an invitation to President Trump to speak in the Royal Gallery.
I conclude by saying to the hon. Gentleman that we value our relationship with the United States. If a state visit takes place, that is way beyond and above the pay grade of the Speaker. However, as far as this place is concerned, I feel very strongly that our opposition to racism and to sexism, and our support for equality before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important considerations in the House of Commons. [Applause.]
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Two words: well done. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
No, we should not have clapping in the Chamber, but sometimes it is easier to let it go than to make a huge fuss about it.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 6th February 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 View all European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Corrigendum to the Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 6 February 2017 (PDF, 57KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
20:48 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 284 / Noes: 333 - Question accordingly negatived.
23:54 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 276 / Noes: 333 - Question accordingly negatived.
00:07 - divided: - Ayes: 62 / Noes: 333 - Question accordingly negatived.
00:21 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 267 / Noes: 330 - Question accordingly negatived.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 20—Financial services—reports—
“As from the day on which this Act comes into force the Secretary of State shall, at least once in every six months, lay before Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to defend and promote the access to European markets for the UK financial services sector as a consequence of the exercise of the power in section 1.”
This new clause would seek regular reports from Ministers about the impact of withdrawing from the European Union on the UK financial services sector.
New clause 22—Competition Policy—
“Following the exercise of the power in section 1, Her Majesty’s Government shall make an annual report to Parliament on its policy regarding state aid, government intervention in industry and fair competition arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from European Union competition regulations.”
This new clause seeks the publication of an annual report from Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the competition policy consequences of withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 29—Reporting to Parliament—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must undertake to report to Parliament each quarter on her progress in negotiations on Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
This new clause puts a requirement on the Prime Minister for quarterly reporting during the negotiating process.
New clause 51—Approval of White Paper on withdrawal from EU—
“(1) This Act comes into effect after each House of Parliament has approved by resolution the White Paper on withdrawal from the EU.
(2) The White Paper must, in particular, provide information on—
(a) the nature and extent of any tariffs that will or may be imposed on goods and services from the UK entering the EU and goods and services from the EU entering the UK;
(b) the terms of proposed trade agreements with the EU or EU Member States, and the expected timeframe for the negotiation and ratification of said trade agreements;
(c) the proposed status of rights guaranteed by the law of the European Union, including—
(i) labour rights,
(ii) health and safety at work,
(iii) the Working Time Directive,
(iv) consumer rights, and
(v) environmental standards;
(d) the proposed status of—
(i) EU citizens living in the UK and,
(ii) UK citizens living in the EU,
after the UK has exited the EU;
(e) estimates as to the impact of the UK leaving the EU on—
(i) the balance of trade,
(ii) GDP, and
(iii) unemployment.”
New clause 56—Notification of withdrawal from the EEA—
“The Prime Minister may not give the notification under section 1 until such time as Parliament has determined whether the UK should also seek to withdraw from the European Economic Area in accordance with Article 127 of the EEA Agreement.”
This new clause would allow for proper parliamentary debate and scrutiny of the United Kingdom’s membership of the Single Market and whether the UK should remain as a member of the European Economic Area prior to the Prime Minister triggering Article 50.
New clause 111—European Police Office (Europol)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Police Office (Europol).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Police Office (Europol) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 112—European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) following the UK‘s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 113—European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK‘s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 114—Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK‘s participation in and engagement with the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) following the UK‘s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 115—European Medicines Agency (EMEA) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Medicines Agency (EMEA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 116—European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 117—European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 118—European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 119—European Police College (Cepol)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Police College (Cepol).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Police College (Cepol) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 120—European Environment Agency (EEA) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Environment Agency (EEA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Environment Agency (EEA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 121—European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) —report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 122—European Investment Bank (EIB)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Investment Bank (EIB).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Investment Bank (EIB) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 123—Eurojust—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with Eurojust.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the Eurojust following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 124—European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 125—European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 126—European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 127—European Satellite Centre (EUSC)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Satellite Centre (EUSC).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Satellite Centre (EUSC) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 128—Protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the protected designation of origin (PDO) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 129—Protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the protected geographical indication (PGI) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 130—Traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty’s Government in respect of the United Kingdom’s participation in and engagement with the traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the traditional specialities guaranteed (TSG) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 134—Notification of withdrawal from the EEA—
“The Prime Minister may not give the notification at section (1) until such time as a Parliamentary vote has approved the withdrawal of the UK from the European Economic Area in accordance with Article 127 of the EEA Agreement.”
New clause 136—Approval of report on withdrawal from EU—
“(1) This Act comes into effect after each House of Parliament has approved by resolution the report on withdrawal from the EU.
(2) The report must, in particular, provide information on—
(a) EU citizens living in the UK and,
(b) UK citizens living in the EU, after the UK has exited the EU.”
New clause 151—Renewables—reports—
“As from the day on which this Act comes into force the Secretary of State shall, at least once in every six months, lay before Parliament a report stating what, if any, steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to defend and promote the access to European markets for the UK renewables sector as a consequence of the exercise of the power in section 1.”
This new clause would seek regular reports from Ministers about the impact of withdrawing from the European Union on the UK renewables sector.
New clause 169—European Health Insurance Card (EHIC)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) scheme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 171—Erasmus+ Programme—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the Erasmus+ Programme.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the Erasmus+ Programme following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 173—European Research Area (ERA)—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Research Area (ERA).”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Research Area (ERA) following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 176—Requirement to have regard to Motions passed by Parliament—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to any motions passed by Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations associated with the notification of the UK’s intention to leave the European Union authorised by this Act”.
This new clause would require Her Majesty’s Government to have regard to any motions passed by Parliament on the outcome of the negotiations associated with the notification of the UK’s intention to leave the European Union authorised by this Act.
New clause 177—European Arrest Warrant—report—
“Within 30 days of the coming into force of this Act the Secretary of State shall publish a report to both Houses of Parliament setting out the approach to be taken by Her Majesty‘s Government in respect of the United Kingdom‘s participation in and engagement with the European Arrest Warrant.”
This new clause would seek a report from Her Majesty’s Government on the UK’s participation in and engagement with the European Arrest Warrant following the UK‘s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 8—EU and United Kingdom nationals—
“In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must resolve to guarantee the rights of residence of anyone who is lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which section 1 comes into force in accordance with or as consequence of any provision of a Treaty to which section 1 relates, and United Kingdom nationals living in the parts of the European Union that are not the United Kingdom before the European Council finalises their initial negotiating guidelines and directives.”
Amendment 83, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, leave out “the Prime Minister” and insert “Parliament”.
Amendment 45, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has confirmed that EU nationals living and working in the United Kingdom on the date that the UK withdraws from the United Kingdom will be subject to the same citizenship rights that applied prior to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal.”
Amendment 78, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until the Foreign Secretary has published a revised programme of work for the UK Permanent Representative to the European Union for the duration of the negotiating period, and laid a copy of the report before Parliament.”
Amendment 84, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The persons authorised to give notification under subsection (1) on behalf of Parliament are—
(a) The Speaker of the House of Commons, on behalf of the House of Commons, and
(b) the Lord Speaker, on behalf of the House of Lords.
(1B) Parliament may only give notification under subsection (1) if—
(a) both Houses of Parliament have passed resolutions approving notification; and
(b) votes in favour of notification have been passed by—
(i) the Scottish Parliament,
(ii) the National Assembly for Wales, and
(iii) the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(1C) A notification under subsection (1) must be given as soon as is practicable after the two Houses of Parliament have passed resolutions approving notification.”
Amendment 12, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(3) Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper on the UK Exiting the EU.”
Amendment 17, page 1, line 5, at end insert —
“(3) Before exercising power under subsection (1), the Prime Minister must give undertakings that all EU citizens exercising their Treaty rights in the UK who—
(a) were resident in the UK on 23 June 2016, and
(b) had been resident since at least 23 December 2015
be granted permanent residence in the UK.”
Amendment 36, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(3) Before the Prime Minister issues a notification under this section, Her Majesty’s Government has a duty to lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper setting out its approach to any transitional arrangements with the European Union following the expiry of the two-year period specified in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union.”
This amendment would require the Government to set out, prior to triggering Article 50, a detailed plan for a transitional arrangement with the EU covering the period between the end of the two-year Article 50 negotiation period and the coming into force of a final Treaty on the UK’s new relationship with the EU.
Amendment 44, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(3) Before exercising the power under subsection (1), the Prime Minister must lay a report before Parliament on the Government’s proposed negotiation package, including detailed and specific information on—
(a) the proposed terms of the UK’s access to the Single Market (if any) or the negotiating mandate thereof;
(b) the nature and extent of any tariffs that will or may be imposed on goods and services from the UK entering the EU and goods and services from the EU entering the UK or the negotiating mandate thereof;
(c) the terms of proposed trade agreements with the EU or EU Member States, and the expected timeframe for the negotiation and ratification of said trade agreements or the negotiating mandate thereof;
(d) the proposed status of rights guaranteed by the law of the European Union, including—
(i) labour rights,
(ii) health and safety at work,
(iii) the Working Time Directive,
(iv) consumer rights, and
(v) environmental standards;
(e) the proposed status of—
(i) EU citizens living in the UK, and
(ii) UK citizens living in the EU,
after the UK has exited the EU or the negotiating mandate thereof;
(f) details of the Government’s internal estimates as to the impact of the above measures on—
(i) the balance of trade,
(ii) GDP, and
(iii) unemployment,
in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
(4) The report in subsection (3) must set out the costs and benefits of holding a referendum which asks the public to decide between the proposed negotiation package or remaining a member of the European Union.
(5) The report in subsection (3) must not be laid before the House before 1 December 2017.”
New clause 6—EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom—
“(1) Anyone who is lawfully resident in the United Kingdom—
(a) on the day on which section 1 comes into force, and
(b) in accordance with or as consequence of any provision of a Treaty to which section 1 relates,
shall have no less favourable rights of residence or opportunities to obtain rights of residence than they currently enjoy.”
This new clause guarantees the rights of EU nationals living in the UK at the date when article 50 is triggered.
New clause 14—Rights for EU nationals—
“Her Majesty’s Government shall ensure that those persons who have a right to indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of their EU citizenship on the day on which this Act is passed shall continue to have an indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.”
This new Clause would ensure that those persons who have a right to indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of their EU citizenship on the day on which this Act is passed shall continue to have an indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
New clause 27—EU nationals in the United Kingdom—
“(1) The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under subsection 1(1) unless the Prime Minister is satisfied that arrangements are in place to secure that every individual who is—
(a) not a citizen of the United Kingdom, and
(b) on the date on which this Act comes into force (“the Commencement Date”), is resident in the United Kingdom pursuant to any right derived from the treaties,
shall, when the treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom, continue to be entitled to reside in the United Kingdom on terms no less favourable than those applicable to that individual on the Commencement Date.”
New clause 33—Immigration—draft framework—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must set out a draft framework for the future relationship with the European Union which includes reference to how this will give the UK control over its immigration system.”
New clause 57—Effect of notification of withdrawal—
“Nothing in this Act shall affect the continuation of those residence rights enjoyed by EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on 23 June 2016, under or by virtue of Directive 2004/38/EC, after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.”
This savings new clause is designed to protect the residence rights of those EU citizens who were lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the date of the EU referendum. It would ensure that those rights do not fall away automatically two years after notice of withdrawal has been given, if no agreement is reached with the EU. This new clause would implement a recommendation made in paragraph 53 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its report ‘The human rights implications of Brexit’.
New clause 67—Indefinite leave to remain for EU citizens in Wales—
“Before the Prime Minister can exercise the power in section 1, the Prime Minister must commit to automatically granting indefinite leave to remain in the UK for EU citizens already lawfully resident in Wales.”
This new clause requires the Prime Minister to commit to implementing the Leave Campaign’s pledge to automatically grant indefinite leave to remain in the UK for EU citizens already lawfully resident in Wales before exercising the powers outlined in section 1.
New clause 108—Status of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister shall commit to maintaining the current status, rights and entitlements of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom, inclusive of and in addition to their status, rights and entitlements as EU citizens.”
New clause 135—Effect of notification of withdrawal (No. 2)—
“Nothing in this Act shall affect the continuation of those rights of residence enjoyed by EU citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom and UK citizens lawfully resident in the EU on 23 June 2016 after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.”
New clause 142—EU Students in the UK—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until a Minister of the Crown has confirmed that EU students present in the UK on the date the United Kingdom withdraws from the EU will be granted visas to allow them residency rights for the full duration of their academic courses.”
New clause 146—Rights of EU citizens in the UK—
“Any citizen of an EU Member State lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act comes into force shall have no less favourable rights of residence than they currently enjoy.”
Matthew Pennycook
New clause 3 concerns the parliamentary oversight of the negotiations that will follow the triggering of article 50. It would require the Government to report back to Parliament at least every two months on the progress of negotiations and to lay reports before both Houses of Parliament on each occasion. Let me be clear that the purpose is to improve the Bill by providing Parliament with the means not only to effectively monitor the Government’s progress throughout the negotiations, but to actively contribute to their success by facilitating substantive scrutiny that can positively influence the outcome.
We are here today debating this new clause and other new clauses and amendments to the Bill only because the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s November ruling on the triggering of article 50, confirming that only Parliament, not Ministers using the royal prerogative, can initiate the start of the UK’s exit from the EU.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way and will make a little progress, if that is okay.
The Supreme Court was right to make it clear that Parliament should exert democratic influence over Brexit. That influence should be felt at the start, throughout and, most importantly, at the end of the formal process of leaving the EU. In practice, the Opposition believe that there must be three distinct pillars of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability: first, the provision of a detailed plan published prior to the start of negotiations that can inform future debates and votes, and that can be used throughout as a point of reference; secondly, a means of ensuring robust parliamentary oversight throughout the formal negotiation period; and thirdly, a meaningful debate and vote in Parliament on the proposed deal before it is signed off with the European Council and Parliament.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman really think that in a negotiation that could take many months and which will be extraordinarily complicated it would be in the best interests of the UK to have to reveal its hand every two months?
Matthew Pennycook
I want to make it clear that we are not asking the Government to reveal the minutiae of the negotiations or to micromanage the process, and I will say more about that further on in my remarks.
Under pressure, the Government conceded the first of those requests in the form of the White Paper published on Thursday, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will seek to win agreement to the third tomorrow, when he moves new clause 1. The purpose of new clause 3 is to secure the second of those pillars and, in so doing, ensure an enhanced role for hon. Members throughout the process. The Government should welcome an enhanced role for Parliament throughout the negotiations for two reasons.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make some progress, if I may.
First, although Ministers obviously need sufficient room for manoeuvre, and understandably cannot therefore consent to the micromanagement of the process by parliamentarians, active and robust parliamentary scrutiny will aid the negotiations by testing and strengthening the Government’s evolving negotiating position and their hand with the EU. Secondly, facilitating substantive parliamentary scrutiny and accountability would help to bind the wounds of the referendum and forge a genuine consensus in the months and years ahead, by reassuring the public, particularly the 16.1 million people who voted remain, that they will not be marginalised or ignored but that their views will be taken into account and their interests championed by their representatives in Parliament.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
If the House is to pore over the details of the Government’s negotiating position and express its view on them at regular intervals, that will be known to those with whom we are negotiating. How will that not undermine the Government’s position?
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, he will see that that is not what we are asking for. When it comes to sensitive or confidential matters, we hope that there are mechanisms to allow the House to view and respond to those.
In leaving the EU, we need a deal and a process that work not just for the 52% who voted leave or the 48% who voted remain but for each and every person with a stake in our country’s future. No one can reasonably accuse the Secretary of State of being unwilling to appear before the House—he has responded to every question put to him on this subject, even if, to ape the language of the White Paper, it has not always felt as if we have got an answer—but we require something more throughout the formal negotiations: an opportunity for hon. Members to play an active role in scrutinising and influencing the process, rather than merely to observe and comment on it retrospectively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) rightly argued on Second Reading, hon. Members are not passive bystanders, but should be active participants in the process.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that Parliament is sovereign throughout the whole process and has a chance to look at the general direction the Government are taking by withdrawing from the EU?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As she will see, we are asking for no more and no less than the European Parliament will get.
Substantive parliamentary scrutiny and accountability are not the same as accountability after the event, and new clause 3 is focused on securing what is needed for the former. The Secretary of State has made it clear on numerous occasions that when it comes to the provision of information during the negotiations it is his intention that hon. Members will enjoy not just the same access to information as their counterparts in the European Parliament, but that the situation here will be an improvement on what the European Parliament sees.
We do not know precisely what the Members of European Parliament will see throughout the negotiations, but it is reasonable to assume that their involvement is likely to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of article 218 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and that the detailed arrangements are likely to be similar to those set out in the 2010 framework agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the Commission. It is worth stating for the record, therefore, what that involves. Paragraph 23 of the framework agreement makes it clear that the European Parliament shall be
“immediately and fully informed at all stages of the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements”.
In addition, paragraph 24 requires that information shall be provided to the European Parliament
“in sufficient time for it to be able to express its point of view if appropriate, and for the Commission to be able to take Parliament’s views as far as possible into account”.
Lastly, in order to facilitate oversight of any sensitive material, article 24 of the framework agreement states:
“Parliament and the Commission undertake to establish appropriate procedures and safeguards for the forwarding of confidential information from the Commission to Parliament”.
In short, the Commission needs to let the European Parliament know in good time what it is proposing, with provisions made for sensitive or confidential material, and to give sufficient time for the Parliament to provide feedback, and then act upon it if appropriate. That is now the baseline of European parliamentary scrutiny—the baseline that the Secretary of State has assured us this House can expect not only to match, but to surpass.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that most European papers are published in English by the House of Commons Library. He has not yet answered the question about where he would draw his line in the sand in respect of what he refers to as micromanagement and material that should be discussed every two months.
Matthew Pennycook
I have been absolutely clear about that, I am afraid, and it is up to the Government to determine what sensitive material would come before Members of Parliament in that process.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
Let me make a little more progress, if I may.
In acknowledging the delicate balance between the need for robust parliamentary oversight and the needs of the Executive, it is that baseline of oversight that new clause 3 seeks to secure for this place. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) argued on Second Reading, process matters.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I respect the democratic result of the referendum, but we all owe it to our constituents to get the best deal for them. The east midlands exports 50% of its goods to the European Union, and I would be failing in my duty as an east midlands MP if I did not have a chance to ensure that those jobs are not jeopardised by the Government deal. Is that not why scrutiny is important?
Matthew Pennycook
That is precisely why scrutiny is important, and if the Government were approaching this in a reasonable and sensible manner, they would actively welcome my hon. Friend’s input into the process.
The Government should embrace rather than resist agreeing to a proper process for actively engaging the House in the considerable challenge it now faces. The undertakings sought in new clause 3 would ensure the active and constructive involvement of Parliament in that process and increase the chances of securing the best possible deal for the British people. I hope the Government will consider new clause 3 in the spirit in which it has been moved, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on the matter.
In turning to the important matter of the rights of European Union nationals living in the UK, I shall speak to new clause 8, but principally to new clause 6, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) argued so passionately during last week’s Second Reading debate, EU nationals who have put down roots in the UK are part of the fabric of our nations and our communities. They are our neighbours. Many of them sustain the public services we rely on and they deserve to be treated with respect. They should not be used as bargaining chips in the negotiations.
I have no doubt that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have had, as I have, EU nationals attending their constituency advice surgeries to express the sense of trauma and anxiety that they have felt every single day since 23 June last year, and to seek reassurance. While individual hon. Members can and, I am sure, have sought to reassure, we can provide EU nationals living in our constituencies with no guarantees. Only the Government have it within their gift to do so. The purpose of new clause 6 is therefore a simple one. It will ensure that on the day section 1 of the Act comes into force, the rights of residence of EU nationals living in the UK or the opportunities for those nationals to obtain such rights of residence will be guaranteed on the date on which article 50 notice is formally served.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Even the Prime Minister’s statement today did not provide certainty. What constituents who have lived here for a number of years say to us is that they need certainty, so that they can know how to plan their lives. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, in any event, someone who has lived here for five years should be able to get permanent settlement and that someone who has lawfully lived here six years should also be eligible for British citizenship? It is vital that the Government state this very clearly.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
May I urge my hon. Friend to look at the report of a commission organised by British Future, which I chaired? The report, which received cross-party support, said that the triggering of article 50 was the point at which rights would come in, but that there should be a transition period of about five years allowing people to normalise their status, and that there should be a special status to allow for our relationship with Ireland. We believed that that would be a way of giving certainty to EU citizens, and would also be perceived as fair throughout the EU.
Matthew Pennycook
I think that that echoes part of a suggestion that we have made. It is touched on in other new clauses, such as new clause 57.
Matthew Pennycook
I shall make a little progress, if I may.
Hon. Members will know that permanent residence is an EU law concept similar to, but not exactly the same as, indefinite leave to remain in the UK for non-EU citizens. It is not guaranteed that the concept itself will continue to exist after we leave the EU. However, we are not debating today the complex legal issues that arise in this area; instead, we are debating a principle. We are debating how the rights associated with permanent residence are to be guaranteed.
Matthew Pennycook
I am happy to give way, but then I am going to make a bit of progress.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman says that we are not debating the detail, but I am afraid that that is what he is proposing. He is proposing a rather wide blanket measure which would give many people an unconditional right to stay in the country. What provision does his new clause make—I cannot see any—for the more than 4,000 EU nationals who are in United Kingdom prisons? What arrangements will there be when we leave the European Union to ensure that we can remove them from the United Kingdom, which we can currently do under the EU prisoner transfer agreement?
Matthew Pennycook
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it depends on the terms of the sentence. New clause 6 seeks an in-principle guarantee from the Government that they will secure the rights of EU nationals.
Few would question the fact that Brexit has divided the country, but on this issue there is a clear consensus that the Government should act decisively to give certainty to EU nationals. A motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) in July last year, which called on the Government to commit themselves with urgency to giving EU nationals currently living in the UK the right to remain, was passed overwhelmingly in the House, and that parliamentary support is mirrored among the public. Polling by British Future shows that 84% of people, including 77% of leave voters, support the ability of existing EU nationals to stay in the UK. The Labour party has called repeatedly for the Government to act to end the uncertainty that those people face. Indeed, such is the level of consensus that even Migration Watch and the UK Independence party have joined those calls.
The only question that remains is whether the rights that flow from permanent residency, and the opportunity for those who are eligible to obtain those rights in the future, will be secured by means of a reciprocal agreement or unilaterally guaranteed by the Government.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way, if that is okay, because I know that many other Members wish to speak, and I do not think the Front Bench should take the majority of the time.
We recognise the efforts of the Prime Minister and her Ministers to achieve a reciprocal agreement with our EU partners that would also guarantee the rights of UK nationals in other EU countries. We owe a duty to our nationals in those EU countries, and securing their rights must remain a priority. However, with no reciprocal agreement reached and with just weeks to go until the triggering of article 50, we believe that the uncertainty must be brought to an end by unilateral action on the part of the Government.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to give way any further.
There are hard-headed as well as moral reasons for doing this. Guaranteeing the rights of residence of EU nationals unilaterally on the date on which the article 50 notice is given would not only end the uncertainty that millions now face. It would also ensure the best possible start to the negotiations that lie ahead, and would send a clear signal to the small minority who have treated the referendum result as a licence to victimise others that our fellow Europeans are welcome and will remain so.
A number of other new clauses and amendments share the purpose of new clause 6 in seeking to protect the rights of EU nationals living in the UK. Indeed, some add additional safeguards to the basic guarantee that we seek. In particular, new clause 57, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), would ensure not only that the residence rights of EU citizens were protected, but that those rights did not automatically fall away at the end of the article 50 negotiating period if no agreement had been reached. If my right hon. and learned Friend were minded to push the new clause to a vote, she would have our support.
What matters in the end is that this issue is resolved as a matter of urgency in order to end the anxiety that people are currently feeling, and the distress that will be caused by a prolonged period of uncertainty during the negotiations. I hope that Ministers will be able to give us, and the thousands of EU nationals and their families out there, the reassurances that we seek.
Mr Harper
I note that this group is a fairly hefty one with a large number of amendments, but I wish to make only five points, so I will attempt not to take up too much of the House’s time.
The first point that I wish to address is that of parliamentary scrutiny, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) at the beginning of his remarks. A number of new clauses and amendments talk about producing a raft of reports, including the rather large number of new clauses from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). What I want to throw out there is the question of what that really adds to the process. It seems to me—I have also spoken to a number of my constituents about this—that this House has spent a lot of time, as is appropriate, debating Brexit and all the issues that flow from it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been here on a number of occasions, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has made a number of statements, and it seems to me that Ministers have furnished the House with a significant amount of information. Moreover, in the White Paper published last week, which I read very carefully, there was a reiteration of the commitment to bring forward the great repeal Bill, which will be very wide in scope and will enable Parliament to debate these matters, and there was also the suggestion that it is very likely that there will be primary legislation on immigration and customs matters, which will, of course, be debated by the House.
John Penrose
I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is a vast amount of information already coming out. Does he agree that even if that co-operative attitude were to change, there are plenty of mechanisms—urgent questions and the like—available to both Government and Opposition Members to bring Ministers to the Dispatch Box to provide the kind of explanation that everybody here is expecting? Does he therefore agree that it is very hard to see how the Opposition’s proposals build on or add to those mechanisms which are already available to all of us?
Mr Harper
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, certainly the Opposition Front Bench was desperately looking around for amendments that would not stop the Bill in its tracks, and this was about the best they could come up with. But it does not really add very much and is rather unnecessary, and, as I have said, many of the new clauses are rather repetitive, talking about reports and information about a whole raft of EU institutions, which will, of course, be covered in any event.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effect, if not the intent, of the Opposition new clause would be to make all these matters justiciable and therefore bring the courts into the question of whether the Government’s reports were sufficient and, indeed, appropriate?
Mr Harper
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. Once we put things into primary legislation and set out the nature and terms of the report, it will, as we have seen, be justiciable, and it will allow people to go to court and argue—they might be successful, they might not—that what the Government have brought forward is not adequate, and we will then have a continuation of the legal arguments that we have seen.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Should not any Member of this House want as a minimum requirement access to information and opportunities at least equal to those of any Member of the European Parliament—surely no Member of this House can justify arguing for anything less?
Mr Harper
The point I was making—and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) was agreeing—is that there are already well-established mechanisms in this House for ensuring that information is brought before Members. Indeed, if I simply judge my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union by what they have done so far, it seems to me that they have been in this House frequently talking about Brexit. I fear that, by the end of this process, certainly the general public will be willing it to end as might hon. Members.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is not one of the problems that, in recent years, motions have regularly been carried by the House and then been completely and utterly ignored by the Government? We need more than just a simple yes or no vote at the end of this process. We need to be able to scrutinise whatever deal emerges line by line. That is exactly what the European Parliament will be able to do, so why on earth should not we be able to do it too?
Mr Harper
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman rose to his feet, because I am about to turn away from my first point about the new clauses tabled by Opposition Front-Bench Members and to talk about the ones that I think could be much more damaging. Those include new clause 51, to which the hon. Gentleman has appended his name, and amendment 44.
In the Government’s amendment to the Opposition motion that was passed by the House on 7 December last year, the House agreed by 448 votes to 75 that the Government should indeed ensure that Parliament had the necessary information to scrutinise these matters properly. The instruction from the House also stated, however,
“that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK”.—[Official Report, 7 December 2016; Vol. 618, c. 220.]
This is an arguable matter, but my contention is that the detail called for in new clause 51 on, among other things, the terms of proposed trade agreements and the proposed status of citizens are details that we would not want to disclose during our negotiations. For example, we would not wish to disclose whether tariffs were to be introduced or at what level. To do so would be to reveal our negotiating hand, which would be counter to the strongly expressed view of the House. If new clause 51 or amendment 44 are put to a vote, I strongly urge the House to vote against them.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned new clause 51, which has been tabled in my name and those of other Opposition Members. Given that, before the referendum, the Government of which he was a part estimated the damage to the UK’s GDP of our leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation terms at around 7.7% of GDP or perhaps as much as £66 billion, would he not think it sensible for the Government to allay the country’s concerns if they now believe that the effects will be far less serious?
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman is picking out one aspect of his new clause. I was drawing out an aspect, to which I object, dealing with the effective disclosure of our hand in the discussion on future trading arrangements. That would not be very sensible while we are carrying out negotiations with our trading partners.
Owen Smith
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for being tempted. Another big area in which the Government were very clear, prior to the referendum, was the impact on trade of our leaving the EU, yet now we have no information on whether there will be more or less trade with the EU or with its constituent countries. Does it not seem sensible to tell the country whether we will have more trade with the EU or less?
Mr Harper
One of the flaws in the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion is that all the matters to which he refers are forecasts, estimates or guesses. A number of estimates and forecasts were made by both sides of the argument—leave and remain—before the referendum. I am not an expert on these matters, but it seems that not all of those forecasts and assessments have panned out exactly as people thought they would, so I really do not know why producing large documents full of equally erroneous forecasts would be helpful.
Sir Hugo Swire
Has not this exchange demonstrated the foolhardiness of revealing our hand at this stage, given the fact that we cannot officially strike any kind of bilateral trade deal until we leave the EU? We must avoid talking our country down when every trade deal and every relationship we have—yes, even with the United States—will be of paramount importance. We should also do everything to resist the temptation to insult anyone from those countries who might be coming here.
Mr Harper
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. That demonstrates the expertise that he acquired when he was a Foreign Office Minister.
Moving on to number three of my five points, new clause 56 refers to our withdrawal from the EEA and tries to make that into a separate argument. We are a member of the EEA as a result of being a member of the EU. Given that the EEA agreement talks about the free movement of goods and persons and means that we are susceptible to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, if we were to remain within the EEA, we would in the view of most members of the public effectively not have left the EU at all—the things that they were concerned about would still be in force. Indeed, things would have got worse because we would have no ability to influence—[Interruption.]
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Harper
Let me just finish my point. We would have no ability to influence the rules that we would have to accept. Members who are talking about the EEA are simply trying to avoid the fact that we are going to be leaving the European Union; they are trying to remain in it by the back door.
Mike Gapes
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Norway is not in the European Union, that Norway was cited by leading leave campaigners as an option that we could follow and that we could be like Norway and not within the European Union?
Mr Harper
I can confirm to the House that Norway is not a member of the European Union. That is indeed true. Part of the reason why I was on the remain side of the argument was that the Norway deal is not very good at all and not a model to be followed. My view was that—[Interruption.]
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Harper
Let me finish answering the point of the hon. Member for Ilford South and then I will of course take an intervention. I did promise to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) first, but I will then give way to the hon. Lady.
The two best options are either to be in the EU and accept everything that comes with that, but with the ability to shape the rules, or to leave and not be in the single market, not have free movement of people and not be subject to the European Court of Justice. Norway’s EEA model is poor, because it is subject to the free movement of people, it has to accept the jurisdiction of the Court and it has no right at all to influence any of the rules. It is up to the Norwegians what model they want to adopt, but it is not one that would work for us or that I would recommend to the House.
Julian Knight
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Constructs such as the EEA are effectively antechambers. They are entry points into the EU. It would be inappropriate, given our size and our economy, for a country such as ours that is exiting the EU to rest in something that is unsuitable.
Heidi Alexander
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee whether he believes that Parliament should vote on whether we leave the single market and the EEA before that happens—if that is what the Government want to see through?
Mr Harper
I do not. I will put my cards on the table: I was on the remain side, but I am a democrat, so I accept the result. As a participant, I listened closely to the arguments in the referendum campaign and when David Cameron, then Prime Minister, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), then Chancellor, were leading the remain campaign, they were clear that if the country voted to leave the European Union, we would leave the single market. Both David Cameron and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton thought, erroneously as it turned out, that that argument would be the slam dunk. They thought that the British people would see that being in the single market was absolutely critical and therefore would vote to remain in the European Union.
Mr Harper
If I can finish my answer, I will of course take an intervention.
However, the British public did not agree with David Cameron and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. Therefore, it seems clear that the public accepted that we would be leaving the single market. Leading campaigners on the leave side made exactly the same point. I will now give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).
Mr Kenneth Clarke
It is quite right that the then Prime Minister and Chancellor warned that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market, but my recollection is that some leave campaigners just dismissed that as “Project Fear”. I particularly recollect that the current Foreign Secretary was totally dismissive of that argument and said that we would retain full membership of and full access to the market because Europe needed to sell us its Mercedes and prosecco wine. It is not true that everybody on the leave side acknowledged that we would put ourselves outside tariff and regulatory barriers.
Mr Harper
My right hon. and learned Friend is right that not everybody on the leave side made that argument. The good news for me is that I was not on the leave side of the argument—neither was he—so I feel no obligation to defend any of the arguments made by anybody on that side of the campaign.
I specifically chose the former Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, because they were on my side of the argument, but I think I am right in saying that my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who led the official leave campaign, made exactly that argument, which is why I referred to it.
Ms Gisela Stuart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to the chair of the official leave campaign. Although many voices argued for leave, the official leave campaign, its chair and the co-chairs of its campaign committee made it very clear in public that voting to leave would mean leaving the single market.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that helpful intervention, which rather proves my point. The British people’s decision in the referendum means leaving the EU, which means leaving the single market. That is the conclusion that the Prime Minister has drawn, and it is one that I support.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Harper
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to move on to my fourth point, on the important issue of EU nationals. Given my experience as a former Immigration Minister, I have some questions, and I hope the Minister will be able to address them to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the House.
First, I completely agree that it would be desirable to be able to put at rest the minds and concerns of EU nationals in the United Kingdom who are here lawfully and who contribute to our country, but it is also important to be able to put at rest the concerns and worries of British citizens living elsewhere in the European Union. After all, the primary duty of the British Government is to look out for British citizens. That comes first, ahead of all else, and I fear that what the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich suggested—when he said that, if we cannot reach an early agreement, we should proceed anyway—might well put to rest the concerns of EU nationals in Britain, but would simply throw overboard the interests and concerns of UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union. Doing that would not secure their interests, and it would throw away our ability to do so.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Some 15% of the academic staff, 5% of students and 10% of research students at Cardiff University in my constituency are from the EU. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a significant risk that those EU staff and their spouses will seek employment elsewhere, outside the UK, if they do not have certainty now from the Government? We would then lose all that intellectual capital.
Mr Harper
I completely agree with the hon. Lady, which is why I am pleased that the Prime Minister, in her statement today and on a number of other occasions, has made it clear that she wants to reach an early agreement, and has been seeking to do so, with our European partners. But, in leading our country, the Prime Minister has to look to the interests of British citizens, as well as to the interests of citizens from other EU countries who are here. She does not serve the interests of British citizens by putting the interests of EU nationals ahead of them.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is courteous in giving way. I am a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee, and a few weeks ago we heard evidence from several British nationals living in Spain, Germany, Italy and France. They were members of representative organisations for British nationals, and every single one of them said that they felt that the other member states would reciprocate if the UK Government made a unilateral guarantee of the rights of EU nationals living here. Has he taken that evidence into account?
Mr Harper
I have, and the hon. and learned Lady has now put it before the House, but the problem is that I have not seen any evidence to support that view. If I listened correctly to what the Prime Minister was saying, it sounds as though a number of European member state Governments are indeed of that view, but clearly more than one are not—or at least they are not now. Therefore, it is sensible to get this right.
There is another thing that Members of this House ought to be doing, and this picks up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). There are already several mechanisms through which EU nationals who have lived in the UK for some time can sort out their residency status on a permanent basis. Rather than scaremongering and whipping up concern, hon. Members would do well to put that information in front of their constituents in order to reassure them.
Joanna Cherry
The point that these British nationals living abroad made was that the British Government put this matter on the table—they put the rights of these people at issue—so they should take the lead by guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals living in the UK, and then other member states would follow suit. Those are not my words but the words of British nationals living abroad. What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to that?
Mr Harper
No, with the greatest respect, it is not the same thing. These issues have arisen and there is a question about the rights of EU nationals and British citizens because the people of the United Kingdom decided that we were going to leave the EU. That is not a decision of the Government—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Tyrie
My right hon. Friend would agree, however, that other nationals should not be treated as bargaining chips, and I am sure he would also be aware that the Treasury Committee has heard a good deal of evidence to suggest that the failure to guarantee the rights of EU nationals is now beginning to damage the economy. Given that, and the overwhelming ethical case, does he not agree, on reflection, that the time has come just to protect those EU citizens’ rights?
Mr Harper
I completely agree on the value to the economy. I also agree on this being an urgent matter, and I heard the Prime Minister say exactly that this afternoon. If I may conclude my remarks about EU nationals, perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) will see why I do not think precipitate action is very wise. It could open up a range of complexities which, far from putting people’s minds at rest and making things better, could make things worse.
Ms Gisela Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister and he has been in negotiations. If we put on the table the kind of deal we would expect the other 27 to offer to UK citizens, we would set the template of what we think the right deal is and set the right tone for the negotiations; this is a different matter from trade.
Mr Harper
I was listening carefully to what the Prime Minister said, and it sounds to me as though she and her Ministers are indeed talking to EU member states and trying to get this issue resolved. There is a two-stage process here: we need an agreement in principle by the UK Government with other EU member states—
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to intervene, but I need to finish replying to the right hon. Lady before I can take his intervention. I am also conscious of the fact that I have only one more point to make after I have finished my points about EU nationals, and I want to give other Members the chance to contribute to the debate. [Interruption.] I am giving way to take questions. This is a debate, and I cannot both make rapid progress and give way to Members, so let me just answer the point that the right hon. Lady made. It seems to me that the Prime Minister and her Ministers are indeed dealing with other European members and trying to get this issue resolved, but that is clearly not being entirely reciprocated by other members. The approach has two stages: we need an agreement in principle that we want to guarantee those rights; and then there is also an awful lot of detail to be worked out. These matters are very complicated.
I wish to draw the House’s attention to what happened last weekend. As far as I can tell, looking from the outside, it seems to me that part of the reason for the mess the US Administration have got themselves into is that they produced an Executive order that was not very well thought through. They do not seem to have taken proper legal advice, so got themselves into trouble in the courts. There was an impact on British citizens, before the intervention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary resolved the matter. I do not want us to move precipitately without thinking things through.
I wish to give the House some examples that I think must be sorted out. First, the various amendments and new clauses refer to people who are lawfully resident in the United Kingdom under the existing treaties. People think that is straightforward, but it is actually quite complicated. Any EU national can come to Britain for any reason, for up to three months. If they want to stay here for longer than three months, they have to be either working, looking for work, self-sufficient or a student. If they are self-sufficient or a student, they are here lawfully only if they have comprehensive health insurance. We know from those people who have been trying to regularise their status, following the sensible advice from the right hon. Member for Leicester East, that many do not have that comprehensive health insurance so technically are not here lawfully at all. When we use these phrases, we need to be clear who we are granting the rights to, because people will not be aware of the complexity. If we are to give people clarity and certainty, we have to be clear about what we are doing.
Secondly, the national health service and healthcare are topical issues. We currently have a set of reciprocal arrangements with our European Union partners for people who are in those countries. We do not do the logging, administration and collecting of the money as well as they do. We want to ensure that that will work when we have left the European Union. I do not know where we will end up on that, but it is important.
Thirdly, in an intervention earlier I alluded to a point that must be thought about, because if we act hastily, we will come to regret it. At the end of March last year—these are the latest figures I was able to find—4,222 EU nationals were imprisoned in British jails. Under the EU prisoner transfer framework directive, we have the ability to transfer them when they are in prison, and when they come out we can start to take action to revoke their status in the United Kingdom. I want to make sure that in acting now we do not act hastily and make our ability to remove those people from the United Kingdom more difficult. I fear that the new clauses and amendments we are considering would not adequately deal with that issue, as was reflected in the answer from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich.
Finally, the Bill does one simple thing: it gives the Prime Minister the lawful authority to start the negotiation process. That is all it does. The Government have been generous in making available the time to debate that matter. The Bill does not need to be improved or amended in any way. I do not know which amendments and new clauses will be pressed to a vote, but I hope that I have set out some reasons why several of them should be rejected. If any of them are pressed, I urge the House to reject them.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I rise to support new clause 57, which was tabled in my name and the names of other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, with the support of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House.
This is about 3 million people and their families—EU citizens whose future here has been thrown into doubt by the decision in June that the UK should leave the EU. There is nothing about the cloud of uncertainty that they now live under that is their own fault. If we accept the new clause, we can put their minds at rest and let them look to the future.
Members on both sides of the House will know the people whose lives we are talking about. Some, such as those from France and Spain, have been here for decades. They have children and grandchildren living here. They work in and are part of their local community. It is unthinkable that they would be deported and their families divided because we have decided to leave the EU. Let us put their minds at rest and assure them and their families that our decision to leave the EU will not change their right to be here. Their anxiety is palpable. We have all seen it in our advice surgeries. One of my constituents, an Italian woman, has been here for 30 years. She cannot work anymore because she is ill, and her residency rights are now at risk. People from countries that have more recently joined the EU, such as Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, are working in sectors that could not manage without them—in agriculture, care homes and our tourism industry. Employers in food production are already reporting more difficulty in getting the workers they need. That is happening now.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
New clause 57 was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. My constituent who is a consultant paediatric surgeon from Sweden approached me over the new year in a state of distress because he was not sure about his future status —this is someone who performs really valuable services for the people of the west midlands and at Birmingham Children’s Hospital. He had been advised that he should seek the services of an immigration lawyer, and that advice had come from his trust.
Ms Harman
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There was plenty of other such evidence that came before us on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which he is a very valued member. This ongoing uncertainty around the status of EU residents here is allowing greater exploitation of vulnerable EU workers. Last week, appearing before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Margaret Beels, chair of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, said that she is receiving evidence that gangmasters are telling fearful EU workers that they cannot complain about not being paid or about being subjected to unsafe conditions because if they do they will be deported as they no longer have the right to be here. We are not whipping up fears, but understanding fears and seeking to address them. It is no good, I am afraid, issuing warm words; people need certainty. They work in every part of our private sector. They contribute to our creative industries; they are artists and musicians. They work in our public services. Anyone who has been in hospital recently will very likely have awoken to find a Spanish or a Portuguese nurse at their bedside. If anyone has an older relative in a care home, they are likely to see them being cared for by someone from eastern Europe.
Sir Hugo Swire
I have considerable sympathy with the point that the right hon. and learned Lady is making. We disagree on the fundamental point, which is that we should not do something unilateral here in the United Kingdom before we have agreement on our own residents in Spain and France and elsewhere, because we will potentially be undermining their position. No doubt they will be feeling the sense of vulnerability that she has just articulated about those living here.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that we also heard evidence in the Home Affairs Committee from groups representing the Polish community and other eastern European communities? They said that they had seen an increase in hate crime. They also said that extremists were exploiting the uncertainty and attacking people with phrases such as “Go home” and “Leave the country”. They said that the uncertainty that EU citizens felt made it harder for them to deal with these awful hate crimes.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I am sure that many MPs in this Chamber have also had constituents from the EU who have tried to seek security by applying for permanent residency, but who have been turned down and received “prepare to leave” letters. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) mentioned comprehensive health insurance. There is no such thing. A person cannot get 100% comprehensive health insurance. Previously, the NHS was recognised for giving health cover. Why can this House not give these people security at this end, and not threaten to throw them out?
Ms Harman
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady.
It is not just EU nationals and their families who are worried about the uncertainty hanging over them; so are the employers for whom they work. How will our NHS find the nurses we need if they seek work elsewhere for fear that they will not be allowed to stay? It is not as if we are training them ourselves. With the cuts to bursaries, the number of student nurses has fallen by 23% this year.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently had a conversation with the chair and chief executive of the trust in my constituency, who said that Huddersfield Royal infirmary could not operate if it were not for young Spanish nurses. I also spoke to people at the London School of Economics who said that if the Europeans, who are good at maths and science, were to leave, 20% of the workforce of universities would go back home.
Dawn Butler
My right hon. and learned Friend is being very generous with her time. Constituents have come to my surgeries in tears, fretting about what will happen to them and their jobs. Does she agree that it is not a British value to use people as bargaining chips in the negotiations?
John Penrose
The right hon. Lady is sending out a powerful message about British values and—this point is shared across the House—about giving certainty to EU nationals living here. May I press her, though, on the need to be careful not to send a message to British nationals living in the rest of the EU that they are somehow less important? Their concerns are equally valid and severely felt, and we are equally worried about what is happening to them. Are we not going to address or take account of any of those issues today?
Ms Harman
We simply cannot trade one off against the other like that. This is not an economic trade negotiation.
The new clause is quite simple. It would provide that the rights of residence of EU citizens who were lawfully resident here before the referendum decision on 23 June remain unchanged. We need the clause in the Bill because the Government have been sending out mixed messages, and the Prime Minister did so again in her statement today. On the one hand, she says that anyone who is lawfully here has nothing to worry about. On the other hand, she says that she cannot commit to giving them residency rights because their future must be part of the negotiations.
It is in no way right to use the lives of 3 million people and their families as a bargaining chip. They and their families are not pawns in a game of poker with the EU. They cannot be used as a human shield as we battle it out in Europe for our UK citizens in other countries. We must decide what is fair and right for EU citizens here, and then do it. I thought we were supposed to be taking back control. If the Government reject the new clause, EU citizens will be right to draw the conclusion that their rights to continue to live here could be snatched away if our Government do not get what they want for our UK citizens living in each of the other countries in the European Union.
The new clause is not only the right thing to do as a matter of principle; it is legally necessary. The Government cannot bargain away people’s human rights. The right to family life is guaranteed by article 8 of the European convention on human rights. If the Government bargained them away, EU citizens living here would be able to go to our courts and seek to establish their rights to remain under article 8. If even 10% of those here did that, there would be 300,000 court challenges. There is no way that our court system could begin to cope with that. I hope that the Government accept the new clause. If not, I urge hon. Members of all parties to support it in the Lobby.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who was in the Chamber a short time ago, made an important point about new clause 3. When imposing legal requirements and duties on anybody—let alone the Prime Minister—one has be sure that those requirements are capable of being realised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and other hon. Members have dealt comprehensively with the difficulties that arise from the part of the new clause that mentions laying
“periodic reports…on the progress of the negotiations”.
I think that case has been made.
Let me move on to the next part. The real problem is subsection (c), which would
“make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”
As Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have had an enormous amount of trouble, over and over again, about documents that are marked as “LIMITÉ”. Although such documents are distributed, Parliaments other than the European Parliament are not allowed to refer to them because they are of a confidential nature. I have made it quite clear that I think some of this is overdone. However, to try to impose a legal duty on the Prime Minister to undertake to break the rules relating to limité documents is stretching a point to absurdity.
Clive Efford
I ask the hon. Gentleman the same question that I asked the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) earlier: should he not be arguing, as somebody who has spent a great deal of his time in Parliament scrutinising the European Union, for Members of this House to have rights of scrutiny that are at least equal to those held by Members of the European Parliament?
Sir William Cash
I have enormous sympathy with that. In point of fact, the Secretary of State for Brexit gave evidence in the House of Lords, where, as I understand it, he made it abundantly clear that any document that would be made available to the European Parliament and its committees would, indeed, be made available to this House. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), but I believe such a measure to be unnecessary because an undertaking has already been given by the Secretary of State.
Sir Hugo Swire
New clause 3(c) would
“make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”
Given my hon. Friend’s wide experience, for how long does he think the contents of those documents would remain confidential if they were made available for wide parliamentary scrutiny?
Sir William Cash
Well, they certainly would not. That is really the purpose of the limité restriction. Although I have reservations about the restriction in certain cases, I can think of a number of instances in which it is absolutely vital that the documents remain confidential. If there were any breach of that confidentiality —there would have to be an undertaking by the Prime Minister that she would release it—it could gum up the works to such an extent on matters of intelligence, security and all sorts of things that we would actually end up not receiving any limité documents at all.
With great respect, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who led from the Opposition Front Bench, may or may not have been dealing with these matters for some time, and I will not criticise him for that—[Interruption.] No, this is a perfectly fair point. All I am saying is that, in drafting this, if we end up with something that does not work and we have to comply with new clause 3(a), (b) and (c) to make it work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, we would end up in the courts—and there would be a judicial review, believe me. It naturally follows that the new clause is simply nonsense, so it cannot be brought into effect. That is all I need to say about it.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
My hon. Friends and I have also tabled some amendments. I am glad that we have the opportunity to discuss and debate the Bill over the coming days, although we have been given very little time in which to do so. It is fair to say that this is not scrutiny that the Government either welcomed or encouraged. It is good to have at least a short opportunity to debate this issue, although that has more to do with the Government’s confidence in their own arguments and their ability to deliver a better deal with our EU partners than the one we have at present than it does with a scrutiny process. The Government were dragged kicking and screaming to this Chamber just to have a vote on article 50 in the first place.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is making some very valid points. Will we not also be judged on the leadership we give and on our humanity? Those EU citizens who are here are our friends, our neighbours and our work colleagues, and we have a duty to stand by their rights. The Prime Minister must send a clear message that those who are here are welcome to stay. We must remove the uncertainty, and do it now.
Stephen Gethins
As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point. I pay due respect to the work he has done for the Brain family and others in his constituency in some of the disgraceful immigration cases we have seen. These EU nationals have chosen to make the UK their home and Scotland their home. They make this a better place in which to live and work. It is a no-brainer that we should give them the certainty they deserve.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very cogent and well-structured argument, and I broadly agree with many of the points he is making, but would he not agree that this is really a Mexican stand-off with water pistols? There is no realistic chance that any signatory of the European convention on human rights—the United Kingdom is one; in fact, we drafted much of it—will kick out anybody. We are not going to kick out anybody from the United Kingdom, and nor are UK citizens in other parts of the European Union going to be expelled. Would it not be better for the House to recognise that the position of these EU nationals is not at risk? Would we not be much better off comforting those who are in doubt, rather than spreading fear?
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. The ECHR is under threat from this very Government, so does it not make sense to come into the Lobby with us to support the right of EU nationals to live and work here? I look forward to his standing up for what he has just said and joining us in the Lobby.
Stephen Gethins
No, but I will say this to the hon. Gentleman, because he probably has a lot more influence on the Government Benches than I do—that is one thing I will give him. The Government are desperately in need of friends and good will. If we benefit financially from EU nationals being here, and if our society is richer for their being here, we want to keep them regardless—they are not bargaining chips, but that is something the Government seem to ignore. If EU nationals are not bargaining chips, I would encourage him to join us in the Lobby and give them the certainty they need and deserve.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
The situation is even worse. While accepting what the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) said, pitting Elke Weston, an EU national in my constituency, against my friend Tracy de Jong Eglin in the Netherlands does not in any way give them succour; it makes their situations worse.
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am not surprised, given the amount of hard work he has done for EU nationals in his constituency.
If Conservative Members are so confident in the ECHR, which they now promise us they are, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman voting against his own Government. I do not trust Conservative Members entirely, but if there is not a problem under the ECHR, he and his colleagues will have absolutely no problem joining us in the Lobby.
We will debate the devolved process in the next tranche of proposals, but let me just say this about scrutiny. All this will have an impact on the devolution process, be it in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. If Ministers respect the devolution process, they should have no problem with the additional scrutiny that comes with it. Right now we are in a situation where the unelected House of Lords will have a greater say on this process than the elected Scottish Parliament and other devolved legislatures. No Government, regardless of their colour, have a monopoly on wisdom. The whole point of having a Parliament is that we scrutinise, with the courage of our convictions, and this place makes a contribution. If this Government are confident in what they are doing—or know what they are doing and have any kind of a plan—they should welcome scrutiny in the Chamber here and then elsewhere in these islands, because fundamentally that scrutiny will provide better legislation. On something of such enormity that we are about to undertake, they have a responsibility for it to be scrutinised as much as possible.
Let us not underestimate the impact of the decision that we are about to make this week. It will impact on our rights, on our economy, and on each and every one of us. We will encourage the strengthening of anything that increases scrutiny of this process. The Government’s record so far has not been good. I am not heartened by what I have seen, with a White Paper that was rushed out and could not even get its facts right. We therefore owe a debt of responsibility to people across the UK—and, indeed, beyond—to have more scrutiny than we are promised and more than we have at present.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next colleague, let me say that it will be obvious to the Committee that a great many people wish to speak. There are in excess of 50 new clauses and amendments to be discussed, and we have two hours and 45 minutes left to do so. I hope that Members will be courteous to others and keep their remarks as brief as possible. I appreciate that these are complicated matters, and it is good to have interventions and proper debate and discussion, but let us avoid repetition and rhetoric for its own sake.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
On a point of order, Mrs Laing. It is quite obvious that the programme order will not allow for proper debate by the vast majority of Members. I have never known a debate on any European issue be given such limited time before. Has anyone approached you and asked to re-address the programme order so that we can have the sort of sensible, protracted discussion of these issues that we have had almost to excess on previous occasions such as the debates on the Maastricht treaty?
Mr Harper
Further to that point of order, Mrs Laing. When I considered the Government’s programme motion, it seemed to me that for a two-clause Bill, two days—extraordinarily—on Second Reading and three full days of protected time to allow us to sit late where there are statements was, if anything, an excess of generosity.
The First Deputy Chairman
The former Chief Whip makes a very good point. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but one that I would expect a former Chief Whip to make.
Let me set the mind of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) at rest on two points. First, although there are in excess of 50 amendments and new clauses, some of them address the same points as others, so we are not addressing more than 50 separate points of debate. The other point that I draw to his attention is that the House voted for and supported the programme motion, and that is not a matter for me. I am sure that I can now rely on Sir Hugo Swire to address the Committee briefly and pertinently.
Sir Hugo Swire
I shall seek not to detain the Committee for too long so as not to repeat many of the arguments that hon. Friends and colleagues have made and will no doubt make again and again throughout this evening.
I wish to talk about the two new clauses that have dominated proceedings to date, one rather less emotional than the other. The unemotional one, I would submit, is new clause 3. We have talked about parliamentary oversight of the negotiations and heard the word “scrutiny” bandied around across the Chamber. I sometimes get the impression that some in this Chamber would seek to scrutinise every single line, cross every “t” and dot every “i” of the Government’s negotiating position. It would be interesting to conduct a straw poll as to how many Members in this Committee have ever taken part in a proper negotiation—a commercial negotiation—that requires, at times, one to keep one’s cards close to hand before declaring them. It is impossible, irresponsible and unthinkable to have to negotiate this in public, and particularly so to insert clauses such that anything discussed must be reported back to this House at intervals of
“no more than two months”—
eight weeks—each and every time. The new clause does not say what Parliament might then do if it does not like what the Government are reporting back. Do Members want a vote on it? We have heard about the possibility of legal involvement—judicial review. This is wholly unrealistic and undesirable.
Dr Murrison
I entirely agree that we need to sort this out very early on. Indeed, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said precisely that only a short while ago. Does my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) agree that part of the issue is the unwillingness of some of our interlocutors to engage in meaningful discussion prior to the triggering of article 50? This is surely a matter that can be dealt with early on, but that requires them to engage immediately and not to delay until the triggering of article 50.
Sir Hugo Swire
I do agree, because this cuts both ways. It is cheap politicking to talk about bargaining chips—I do not think anyone is considering that—but this does require an early resolution. I was heartened when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today that she intended to address it early on, but it has to be a negotiation between the other countries of the EU and us. It is just as important to us, as British parliamentarians—as the British Government—to defend the rights of British citizens living overseas. There are a lot of them, and not all of them are particularly contributing to the society they are in. A lot of them are retired, so they are even more vulnerable, in a sense, than many of the EU workers who are here actively working. It is the first duty of this House to look after British citizens, wherever they may be, while also being aware that we have a duty to EU nationals at the same time.
It would be completely wrong in terms of our negotiating position to declare unilaterally that all EU nationals can, up to a certain date, continue to live here without fear or favour. That would be unwise until such time as we can extract a similar agreement from the other countries of the EU where British nationals have lived, sometimes for very many years.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend agree in ringing tones with what everybody has said so far, namely that absolutely nobody in this House wishes to cast any doubt on the right of EU nationals to continue living lawfully here if they are lawfully here now. Apparently, the only reason for his holding back—despite the fact that he entirely shares the sentiments of Opposition Members—is that he fears that if we declare that a Pole who has been living here for years can stay here, we will have thrown away our card and British nationals will be expelled by the Government of some unknown country. I have heard nobody suggest that any such country exists.
We have a pedantic problem of whether we can raise the matter before the process has started. If we just cleared the position of our EU nationals now, it would put the utmost pressure on every other country to clarify the thing as well. No one is going to take any reprisals against our British nationals.
Sir Hugo Swire
I hope my right hon. and learned Friend is right. He has not always been right about everything, although he has been right about quite a lot. He and I were on the same side of the debate, and I know that he regrets, as I do, the fact that in all the discussions about migration and immigration during the campaign, some rather irresponsible points were made repeatedly about who would be able to come here from the Commonwealth, when there was absolutely no suggestion that that was behind anyone’s thinking. However, I fundamentally disagree with him in that I do not think that we should do anything unilateral before we get an agreement about the rights of British nationals living in the rest of the EU.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my view that if the matter is as simple as some make out—if it is just a question of us making a simple declaration—why have the other 27 countries of the European Union not said that our citizens who are living overseas will be fine, and that there will be no repercussions for them? The fact that those countries will not make that commitment says something, does it not?
Sir Hugo Swire
It may do, or it may not. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has said, there is no evidence to suggest that a single country would not behave in a good way. But there is absolutely no evidence that they will all behave in a good way; we simply do not know, because we have not yet had that conversation. Until we have had that debate and secured an agreement that similar rights will be granted to British citizens living in other EU countries, we should not move to allow every single EU national who lives here to continue doing so.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
If the cynics among us genuinely believe that there could be countries out there that are not prepared to do this, should we not now, more than ever, lead by example?
Sir Hugo Swire
I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here earlier when the Prime Minister was asked about the matter. The Prime Minister gave a very strong suggestion that securing such a deal was at the top of her negotiating priorities. At the end of the day, it is an agreement—it is a deal—and it has to be negotiated. I do not think that we would be right unilaterally to declare anything.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a unilateral declaration would undo some of the damage that was done by the “list of foreign workers” stuff that came out of the Tory conference in Birmingham? That shocked a lot of our European partners and hardened their views against us. Surely a unilateral declaration might help.
Sir Hugo Swire
I agree with the hon. Lady that language and sensitivity are incredibly important. We are dealing with families, and with people who are married to EU citizens. We are dealing with people who live here and who do not know whether they have a future here. That is why we have to resolve the matter very early on. I have considerable sympathy, as I have said, with many people who have spoken about the contribution that EU nationals make. I very much hope that we can reach an agreement that will satisfy all who are here but, equally, I think that our first duty is to look after our citizens abroad.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman has talked about the issues faced by British citizens whose partners are EU nationals, but does he agree that we are also talking about children? I have seen children in my constituency raise real concerns about whether they will be able to study in the same school, and about where their future will be. They do not know the country that their parents came from, and they are British in every sense of the word. This is causing huge uncertainty. We can tackle this, and we can do it this week.
Sir Hugo Swire
We can all cite examples from our surgeries of individual cases, but I am not sure that to do so contributes to the greater argument. We need to get a policy in place that covers the whole thing. That can only be achieved by the Prime Minister making it a priority, as she has suggested she will, and getting an agreement from the other member states that involves the reciprocity we need for our British people living abroad.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to be concerned about the fate of British citizens living in the European Union, but I agree with others who have said that, surely, a goodwill gesture would be a really positive thing for this Government to make. Two of my constituents are a married couple who have been living together in this country for 30 years, and I consider the wife to be as British as anybody else. We should make it absolutely clear that it is inconceivable that this couple should be separated, and that their children should be left with separated parents.
Sir Hugo Swire
Indeed, and no doubt there are similar examples of British people in not-dissimilar situations in Spain, France and elsewhere. We need to ensure that their rights are recognised as well.
I am not going to continue in this vein, because others wish to contribute. I have made my point. I have sympathy with the view that EU nationals contribute a lot to the economy. I hope that there is an early agreement that allows them to stay and to continue to work here. Equally, any such agreement, to my way of thinking, has to be part of a wider agreement that assures the future of British nationals living in other EU countries.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I rise to support new clauses 3 and 57. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for their speeches. The one thing I would add to the forceful case made by my right hon. and learned Friend is this: when the Exiting the European Union Committee took evidence from representatives of Brits living abroad, one might have expected them to make the argument that has just been advanced, but they said the opposite. They said that Britain should give a unilateral commitment now, because they felt that doing so would ease the process of negotiation.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I was not at that Committee hearing, and I am quite interested to know whether evidence was taken from ambassadors of EU countries about their Governments’ positions as part of the inquiry.
Hilary Benn
No, we have not taken evidence from ambassadors, but we have heard what has been said from the Government Dispatch Box, namely that—from memory—almost all member states are up for this, apart from one or two. We do not yet know who the one or two are, and I hope that they will change their minds so that we can make progress.
I want to address the arguments we have heard thus far in relation to new clause 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander)—she is no longer in her place—asked the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) whether we should be able to have a vote on certain aspects of the nature of our withdrawal. He said no, because during the referendum campaign it was made clear by leading participants what would happen if we voted to leave, and therefore it is gospel and we cannot argue with it. That is a very interesting argument. On that basis, the NHS will be getting £350 million a week, because that, it was said, would be the consequence of a leave vote—but I will leave that to one side.
The right hon. Gentleman’s central argument, which he made at the beginning of his speech, was to ask what new clause 3 added. I say to him sincerely that it adds accountability. It has been argued that the new clause is unnecessary because the Government are already doing what it would require. If that is true, I would ask why there is a problem with the Government accepting it.
The argument was made that the Government would be forced to reveal all sorts of stuff. All that the new clause says is that the Prime Minister
“shall give an undertaking to…lay before each House of Parliament periodic reports”.
The content of those reports will be for the Government to determine. There is nothing in the new clause about forcing the Government to reveal their hand. When it comes to getting in English the documents that the European Commission is giving to the European Parliament —probably in English, while we still have MEPs, and in the other languages of the European Union—surely there cannot be any argument about that at all. It is entirely sensible.
On the point about confidential documents, I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said. I raised the matter with the Secretary of State when I was first elected as the Chair of the Select Committee, and he replied to me in a letter that
“negotiations will be fast moving and will often cover sensitive material, so we will need to find the right ways of engaging Parliament.”
I welcomed that reply. All that new clause 3 says is that the Prime Minister shall
“make arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of confidential documents.”
The arrangements are for the Government to propose. Given the extent to which Brussels is a very leaky place and the fact that we will be negotiating with 27 other member states, I cannot help making the point that I suspect we will find out very shortly after the meeting has concluded where the negotiations have got to, so the Government’s arrangements will be to advise us all to buy certain newspapers, in which one will be able to read what was discussed during the course of the afternoon and evening.
Sir William Cash
The main point I was making, and I stand by it, is that new clause 3 imposes a legal obligation, enforceable by judicial review, on the Prime Minister effectively—and not just effectively, but actually and legally—to break the confidentiality imposed by, for example, limité documents. As I have said, I do not always subscribe to such degrees of confidentiality, but that is a personal view. The fact is that there is confidentiality, and it is a legal obligation.
Hilary Benn
I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who has great experience in these matters, that we know the Commission, in respect of trade negotiations, made arrangements with the European Parliament for certain documents to be made available, including in rooms where people could go and read them but could not take them away. The new clause is asking the Government to find a way of making this work in a way that is consistent, as of course it has to be, with any legal obligations, but confidentiality does not seem to me to be a very strong argument.
The argument that the new clause would make it all justiciable does not seem very strong either. Frankly, on that basis we might as well all go home tonight and never come back because Parliament legislates, and when Parliament legislates people can go to the courts and seek to suggest that the way in which the legislation is being implemented is not correct. That is not an argument against new clause 3, but against Parliament doing its job.
Having listened to speeches made by Conservative Members, I would gently say to the Minister of State, who is a reasonable man, that I hope he will not get up and repeat the arguments we have heard on new clause 3. Frankly, it is really simple and sensible stuff to help Parliament to do its job. On the frequency of reporting, as the Minister will know, when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) suggested every two months, the Secretary of State got up and said that that might be a rather modest objective. If it is a modest objective, I really do not see how the Government can oppose it.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I do not propose to speak for more than a few minutes. I have been wrestling with this matter for months, and in particular I have wrestled with it over the course of the weekend. This matter affects my constituents in South Leicestershire—and not just them—many of whom have come to see me to explain the problems, for example about children at school, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members.
I was the son of Italian immigrants in Glasgow in the 1970s, and I remember how it felt to be the only son of an immigrant in a classroom full of Scottish people. I do not want any EU national child across the United Kingdom to feel the way that I felt at times in school in the 1970s. However, there is more than simply anecdotal evidence that the situation now caused by Brexit is affecting the wellbeing of families. Such concerns have been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), a fellow east midlands Member for whom I have nothing but the utmost respect. As I have argued with colleagues in the Chamber—we should be saying it far more loudly—EU nationals have contributed an enormous amount to the success and wellbeing of our United Kingdom, as did my parents over 50 years. I want to hear Members say that daily.
It was often said during the EU referendum that there was perhaps a cost consequence to having the 3 million-plus people from every one of the member states who have integrated here. I always believed that that was utter rubbish. We have benefited as a country by having immigrants come into the United Kingdom. The fact is that we will continue to benefit, because when all of this is over, we will still continue to have EU migrants coming into this country. The difference will be that this Parliament and Government—Conservative, Labour or otherwise—will determine the immigration rules. I cannot possibly foresee a situation where a competent British Government would attempt to reduce immigration to levels that would damage our economy. That leads me to a point made in a newspaper recently by an hon. Friend of mine about a promise made in the Conservative manifesto that we have not kept and cannot keep. We cannot get immigration down to the tens of thousands without damaging our economy.
However, I have decided to vote against the amendment on this matter. As I said at the outset, I have wrestled with this decision, because it affects my family personally. I will explain why I have decided to do this. Ultimately, it is because the deal that will be reached with the EU will be not just legal, but also political. It will be about personalities: about how the Prime Minister and her team get on with the other side.
Had I been Prime Minister last July, I might well have taken a different decision. However, I made a comment to the Prime Minister today in which I made it very clear that I am putting my entire trust in her and her Ministers to honour the promise that they are giving to the country about getting an early deal. I said to the leader of my party that it would be “a decisive mark of her negotiating skills and leadership qualities as our Prime Minister.” I believe that she will get a reciprocal deal that benefits citizens from Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales who live in other EU member states, and that protects my own family and friends, my own constituents and other EU nationals across the United Kingdom.
That is why I will vote against the amendment. Ultimately, it is a political matter, and it is for the Prime Minister to demonstrate her leadership and negotiating skills in getting this right, and coming back to the Dispatch Box within months—I repeat, within months—of triggering article 50 with an early deal on which we can all agree and for which we can thank her, that will be to the benefit of all our constituents living abroad and the benefit of EU nationals living in our constituencies.
Heidi Allen
I am just curious. I support the Prime Minister’s intentions and most definitely her sincerity in aiming to achieve such a deal, but does my hon. Friend agree that if that moment does not come as soon as she would like, she should review the idea of unilaterally offering EU citizens their rights and just put everybody out of their misery, because that is the right thing to do?
Alberto Costa
Again, I repeat the comment I made to the Prime Minister that it would be “a decisive mark of her negotiating skills and leadership qualities as our Prime Minister.” She must come back to the Dispatch Box early on with such a deal.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the conclusion that he has reached. The other thing the Prime Minister demonstrated when she was Home Secretary is her attention to detail. As I tried to set out for the Committee, this is actually a more complex matter than it at first appears. It is not just that the Prime Minister needs to get the principle right; she and her Ministers and officials need to get the detail right to ensure not only that my hon. Friend’s family and others like them have security now, but that there are no unforeseen consequences for them in the future. I think that he has made the right decision.
Alberto Costa
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, but a promise has been made about an early agreement, notwithstanding the complexities of the matter. As a lawyer—I am a former corporate lawyer—I know that when my clients came to me asking for me to negotiate, I had to offer solutions to problems. If I did not get the deals that my clients wanted, I would not have been used frequently by those very clients. It will be a mark of our leader, our Prime Minister, if she gets the early deal that she is promising our country, and that is why I am supporting her this evening.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman has obviously made a personal decision on this matter. He uses the analogy of being a lawyer and going to negotiate a deal, but does he not accept that the Prime Minister could just settle and give every EU national in our country right now the right to be here, without any further delay? There is an alternative attitude that would also deliver for his client, is there not?
Alberto Costa
As I mentioned, had I been Prime Minister in July, I might have started the whole process very differently.
I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about the consequences of not getting an early deal on this matter. The consequence would be a tsunami of litigation against the Government. Politically, therefore, an early deal must be brought to this House. That is why I trust the Prime Minister to get that early deal.
The role of Parliament is also a political matter to which Ministers should give serious consideration. The European Parliament has a substantive role in the negotiations that we do not have. Some would say that the primary reason for that is that it represents 27 other nations, whereas we represent one sovereign country as the British Parliament. However, if we hear comments from the media, reporting on what European parliamentarians are being told about what our ministerial negotiating team are saying in Europe, it would become farcical if our Government did not report back to us.
Alberto Costa
I do not see a need to force the Government to do that. It would be politically impossible for the Government to function responsibly and appropriately without giving us at least the same information that we will be receiving from the media and the European Parliament. Again, it is a matter of politics and we should not bind the hands of the Government in a statutory manner that could be justiciable. That is why I trust my Government to come back to the House with sensible updates, no different from the updates that the European Parliament receives, so that we can continue to debate and discuss the matter.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My hon. Friend is on the right side of all these arguments, but he is a very trusting man. Does he not realise that the background to all this is that when the European Commission started negotiating the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, it took exactly the same line that the Government are now taking—that it could not possibly disclose any of these things as it would compromise the negotiations? The fact is that the European Parliament now gets the information because it was less trusting and is made of sterner stuff than this Parliament has so far proved to be. I do not think that that is in accordance with our parliamentary traditions.
Alberto Costa
I respect the judgments and comments of my right hon. and learned Friend. However, I read his recent article about his own thoughts on his first term in Parliament and how he would have dealt with a similar matter. I will leave it at that.
I have listened carefully to the valuable and honourable comments that have been made on this matter, particularly by Opposition Members, but I will support my Government and I will hold my Government to account in a way that I never see Opposition MPs from Scotland holding their Government to account.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
It was touching to hear the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) talk about his hope and aspiration that EU nationals will be allowed to remain indefinitely, and of course he is right on that, yet he betrayed a little bit of fear of offending his Front Benchers were he to go so far as wanting to enshrine those rights in the Bill.
I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for new clause 57. It is important and would provide the assurances that many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people residing in this country require. I tabled a similar new clause—new clause 14—which I hope the Committee will support.
The context of this debate, for which more than 50 substantive amendments on distinct and specific issues of great importance have been tabled, is the contrast between the desire of Members to raise these issues and the nonsensical four hours in which they have to be considered. There is something like four minutes for each topic. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly to Members in the House of Lords how important it is that they do the due diligence on this Bill that the House of Commons will clearly not be able to do.
Stella Creasy
Is it not worth noting that when it came to debating the Lisbon treaty and the Maastricht treaty, 30 days were allocated to discuss the issues in the House of Commons alone? Five days is a very poor comparison.
Chris Leslie
My hon. Friend is completely right. This Bill is far more important than all those treaties wrapped together, because it is about withdrawing from the European Union.
What made the situation worse was the White Paper we had from the Government. Let us not forget that it came the day after the vote on Second Reading. That was pretty shocking and quite contemptuous of the rights that the House of Commons should have. It is a lamentable document because of the lack of information it contains on so many of the important issues on which I and other hon. Members have tabled amendments.
We should use the time we have today to talk about what we need to know and to ask the Government what their plan is. That is why I will briefly go through some of the new clauses I have tabled. For the sake of argument, let us take the first one, new clause 20 on financial services. One could say that it is merely a small corner of Britain’s GDP, but it provides £67 billion of revenue for all our schools and hospitals. If we mess around with that sector in the wrong way, we will all be poorer and our public services will be poorer as a result.
New clause 20 suggests that there should be a report twice a year on where we are going on one of those questions that was not contained in the White Paper: “What is our progress towards a smooth transition from the existing open market access, where we have passports, to the new arrangements, whatever they are going to be?” The White Paper merely says, “We’d quite like to have the freest possible trade,” but it says nothing about what will happen on mutual co-operation, regulation and oversight; whether we will be able to have permanent equivalence rights for some trades; or whether UK firms will have time to adjust.
Those issues already pose a clear and present danger to our economy. HSBC says that 1,000 jobs are going to go, Lloyd’s of London is moving some of its activities, UBS is moving 1,000 jobs, and J.P. Morgan has said that potentially 4,000 jobs will go. Firms are voting with their feet already, yet the White Paper hardly touches on this question.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligence on this Bill and for tabling these important new clauses. If we boil it all down, this is not about passporting and the complicated legal framework around financial services, but about the tens of thousands of my constituents who are in highly skilled, highly paid jobs in the financial services sector and who are worried about their future employment.
Chris Leslie
Absolutely. When hon. Members are asked by their constituents, “What time did you have to debate financial services?”, they will have to say, “There was only a couple of hours or maybe just a few minutes. I didn’t say anything about it because of the ridiculous programme order that we put in place to curtail debate.”
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Is it right that the hon. Gentleman talks down the City of London in this way? We all know about the threats that have been made, but not one of those jobs has left the City of London. The fact is that, given a choice between London, Frankfurt, Dublin or Paris, those companies will choose London every time.
Chris Leslie
I really hope that that is the case. I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration, but he should look at the press releases from HSBC, Lloyd’s of London, UBS and J.P. Morgan. These are not alternative facts; this is the real truth. These are people’s jobs and this is revenue for our country that we will potentially lose.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
It is not talking down the City of London to highlight the report by TheCityUK emphasising that the best-case scenario, under the Government’s plan, is for 7,000 jobs losses, but that the worst-case scenario could be more than 70,000 job losses. That is not talking the City down but making the economic case for securing the best deal.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Is it not my hon. Friend’s point that we are now a service economy? The service sector accounts for 88% of London’s economy, and the service sector can move. Prior to our joining the EU, we had things in the ground and we were a great manufacturing nation, but that is not the case today.
Chris Leslie
That is another issue that deserves a massive amount of consideration, but we just do not have the time to go through it today.
I will move on, then, to new clause 22, on competition policy—another small area of policy! The White Paper says absolutely nothing about what the UK will do, upon our exit from the EU, in respect of competition policy. It is totally silent. Will we change our attitude towards state aid for industry? What will our state aid rules be? If we make a change, will our trading partners baulk at the idea that we might be subsidising products in a particular way? Will we be undercutting their production? Would we not wish to do that? Will we take on the WTO disciplines on subsidies? Will we join the EEA scheme on subsidies? What about state aid rules, competition policy and the European Free Trade Association? This a big deal. I think of subjects that have come up recently such as Hinkley Point, the British investment bank and British steel. These are all questions we have to consider and decide upon. All I am saying in new clause 22 is that the Government should publish a report in one month on their attitude to competition policy. It is a pretty simple measure.
I have tabled other amendments that would require Ministers to set out their aspirations, within one month of Royal Assent, on other questions that will arise as we extract ourselves from some of these European partnerships, alliances and agencies. On law enforcement, for example, what will we do about Europol? New clause 111 touches on the benefits we currently enjoy from cross-border co-operation on cybercrime, terrorism, combating trafficking and other important activities. We deserve to know the Government’s approach to cross-border crime, as we do with respect to the European Police College, Eurojust, our co-operation with prosecuting authorities, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction and the Agency for Fundamental Rights. The White Paper is totally silent on all those issues. We have no idea what the Government’s plan and negotiating stance will be, and yet we do not have the time to debate these matters properly.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I do not know what the Government are worried about. Anybody who knows anything about negotiations knows that each side can report back from time to time without necessarily giving away their negotiating hand. I do not know what they are scared of.
Chris Leslie
I think the Government might be scared of the debate. It also reflects their lack of awareness of the issues. The Government have not thought this through but instead are confronting issues as they bubble up, at a fairly random level, while giving a veneer of control—“We must not show our cards”, “I cannot give a running commentary”. Ministers use these phrases, but behind the curtain they are panicking and their feet are moving rapidly, because they do not have a clue.
Sir Hugo Swire
By logical extension, the hon. Gentleman wants to unpick almost every single part of EU policy, legislation and co-operation with the UK, bring it to the House and get the Government to set out what they want to do about them. How long does he think it would take to dissociate ourselves from the EU if we were to take that line—two years or 20 years?
Chris Leslie
It would take more than the three days that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have given us to debate these questions. We are leaving the EU—that is what the Bill is for. He and his hon. Friends might be happy to trust the Prime Minister entirely, but Parliament is sovereign. The Supreme Court gave us this duty and said that we should do our due diligence, but the time constraints will prevent us from doing so.
I wish to raise a couple of other law enforcement issues. The big one, in new clause 177, concerns the Government’s policy on the European arrest warrant. The EAW, of course, is there to make sure we can transfer criminal suspects or sentenced persons from other countries and put them on trial here, and vice versa. The UK has extradited more than 8,000 individuals accused or convicted of criminal offences to the rest of the EU. I think of the case of Hussain Osman, found guilty of the Shepherd’s Bush tube bombing in July 2005, captured in Rome, extradited under the EAW and sentenced to 40 years. In 2014, the Prime Minister herself said that ditching the EAW would turn Britain into
“a honeypot for all of Europe’s criminals on the run from justice”.
From the Prime Minister’s own mouth! What will be our attitude towards the current level of participation? Will we want to continue with the EAW? There is nothing in the White Paper about it.
Dr Philippa Whitford
Is it not the agencies that will be the biggest problem? The Government describe moving everything over with a great repeal Bill, but what happens where that Bill refers to actions that depend on an EU agency, given that we will not have that agency?
Chris Leslie
That is the fallacy behind the reassurances to hon. Members. We are told, “Don’t worry. We can come to this in later legislation. It will all be fine. The great repeal Bill will deal with these things”.
Of course it will not. These are facilities and levels of co-operation and alliances that exist because of our membership of the EU, and yet we will not even have the time to debate the consequences.
I had better move on rapidly. On public health, what is the plan? What do the Government intend to do? Again, the White Paper said virtually nothing about a range of critical alliances, such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, as dealt with in new clause 113. During the outbreak of SARS in 2003, when the disease rapidly spread across several countries, we knew what to do because these EU-wide institutions and public health authorities were able to provide research and intelligence. There is nothing in the White Paper about the British Government’s attitude to such pan-European questions.
What will we do about the European Medicines Agency, as dealt with in new clause 115? Currently based in London, the EMA harmonises the work of national medical regulatory bodies across a range of issues including the application for marketing authorisations, support for medicines development, patents, monitoring the safety of medicines, providing medical information to healthcare professionals and so forth. Who will take on those responsibilities? What will happen? The White Paper was totally silent on that question.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The Health Secretary told the Health Committee the other day that he had already thrown in the towel on the EMA—that we were leaving it and giving up the headquarters in London, along with hundreds of jobs, meaning far slower approval of vital drugs in this country, and the loss of all our influence and all those jobs.
Chris Leslie
Yes, and, again, we have heard no strategic alternatives from the Government and have no idea what their plan will be.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Given that the Government have said that they will pull out of Euratom, because it is part of the EU, is not the logical extension of their position to pull out of all those agencies? If so, why does my hon. Friend think they do not want to face up to it? Is it because they do not want to face up to the cost of duplicating the work of 30-odd agencies?
Chris Leslie
I do not think Ministers know what to say about some of these questions. They hope that because the issues are fairly low level and very specialist, nobody will spot them, but they will start to affect very many people. Myriad issues will arise.
Mr Sheerman
Is my hon. Friend aware that as a result of our leaving the EMA many jobs in the medical and drugs world will move out of Britain? I met people representing those interests only today, and they are very fearful of what will happen to British jobs.
Chris Leslie
I am afraid to say to my hon. Friend not only that he is right, but that the list goes on—the list of the consequences of withdrawing from the EU without Parliament even having the opportunity properly to debate it. Food safety is covered by the European Food Safety Authority, so we will be throwing in the towel on independent scientific advice on food chain issues and research that is currently in place through our involvement in the EFSA—and there is nothing in the White Paper about it.
Chris Leslie
Oh, the right hon. Gentleman knows what the plan is for the E111.
John Redwood
If the hon. Gentleman had read it, he would understand it perfectly as well as I do. The plan is very simple. All existing laws and requirements will be transferred into good British law. If we need a different adjudicator, that adjudicator can be selected and approved by Parliament. The great news for both of us is that nothing will change legally unless and until this Parliament debates it and wants to change it.
Chris Leslie
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has actually left these shores and visited other countries: we do not control the sort of health insurance and health service schemes that happen in those other European countries, but we currently have a reciprocal health insurance arrangement that provides him, his family and his constituents with a certain degree of cover. That could well be ripped up because of the consequences of the legislation that we are potentially passing—without a word from the Government and with nothing in the White Paper.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about the E111 scheme, because that will have a practical impact on our constituents. If my hon. Friend does not get a clear answer on that, I fear that many constituents will be forced into buying very expensive travel insurance policies to make sure that they are covered while the scheme is left in limbo.
Chris Leslie
The consequences of this aspect and many others are myriad. I hope that the House will begin to wake up and realise that we have been sold a pup with this programme order, which does not give us enough time to discuss all this. I have to move on.
The European Chemicals Agency is another example of something that will be ditched. Companies currently have to provide information about hazards, risks and the safe use of chemicals, but we will potentially leave that agency, with nothing in the White Paper about the alternative.
Another health and safety issue is aviation. What will we do about safe skies, and the regulation of aircraft parts, engines and many other aspects? What will we do about maritime safety? What happens if shipping disasters occur on or around our shores? What is the Government’s alternative? There is nothing in the White Paper.
Another minor issue—he said sarcastically—is the environment, and we will potentially leave the European Environment Agency. New clause 120 simply asks that we have a report within a month on what the Government’s plans should be.
Chris Leslie
I want to move on, if I may.
When it comes to education, science and research issues, we will leave the European Research Council, which is very important. Hon. Members may know about the Erasmus scheme, which means that all our constituents who currently want to study abroad for a few months can have that time recognised as part of their degree, but what will happen to that scheme? There is nothing in the White Paper. It does not say anything about students in our constituencies potentially losing out very significantly. What about satellite issues, plant variety issues, locational training and all sorts of issues?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend is indeed making an excellent speech and highlighting the complexity of the challenges we face. He referred to science, and I had a conversation yesterday with my constituent Clare, who is a scientist and was extremely concerned about how our collaboration will work and what projects we will be included in in the future. She was also concerned about the impact on our young people. Their future is ahead of them, and in a sense we are pulling the rug out from under their feet.
Chris Leslie
We should have the time, the space and the opportunity to discuss the consequences for my hon. Friend’s constituent, but we will not. My hon. Friend will have to tell her constituent that we did not have enough time in the House of Commons. Fingers crossed, there might be time for the House of Lords to do some of this work and put their concerns to Ministers in the other place.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is doing an excellent job of trying to scrutinise the implications of this Bill, yet we have less time on the Floor of the House to debate it than we would have in Committee for much less important Bills. Does my hon. Friend agree that while we want all these issues to be sorted out within two years, that might not happen, which is why we need transitional arrangements as well as a vote on the final deal, so that this House can see whether the Government have done their job properly and truly got the best deal for Britain?
Chris Leslie
Exactly. We need to use the two-year negotiation period wisely. We shall come on in Committee tomorrow to some of those particular issues.
Caroline Lucas
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as having an environment policy, we need to make sure that it is enforceable? It is no good just moving it across, if we cannot bring enforcement to bear. Does he also agree with me that the European Investment Bank is a crucial issue, because it is a massive investor in renewable energy in this country? We need to know where we stand on that.
Chris Leslie
In that case, I will move on to new clause 122, which references the European Investment Bank. It deals with a series of economic and trade co-operation issues, which are again not referenced at all in the White Paper. Can you imagine, Mr Howarth, the Government producing a White Paper about the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union without even mentioning the European Investment Bank, in which, by the way, we currently have a 16% stake? It part-funds Crossrail and the Manchester Metrolink. This is a massively important institution, yet we are simply shrugging it off in a blasé way, saying “Trust the Prime Minister; it will all be fine”.
We should at least ask Ministers about the attitude of the British Government towards it, so I ask the Minister directly: what is the British Government’s attitude to our continued participation in the European Investment Bank? He needs to address that and other issues.
I had better move on and talk about a couple of other new clauses. I know that other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate, and it is frustrating that we do not have enough time properly to debate the issues. I am glad to see in their place a couple of hon. Members who might be interested in these things. New clauses 128 to 130 deal with the issue of the protected designation of the origins of goods and services—specifically, their protected geographical indication.
Hon. Members might well have relevant businesses within their constituencies. This is sometimes known as “the Stilton amendment”, so I am looking at the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara). I understand that Stilton is not necessarily made in North West Cambridgeshire, but the hon. Gentleman has the village of Stilton in his constituency. Similarly, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) will be well aware of the wonders of Fal oysters, which are protected under the protected geographical indication—PGI—scheme that applies to European trade. Whether they are called “the Stilton amendment” or “the Scotch whisky amendment”, the new clauses simply ask what the Government’s plan is for those protected products—much-cherished and much-valued not just where they are produced, but where they are consumed worldwide—if they lose their protected status? We could end up having knock-off Scotch whisky sold around the world without that protection. The same might apply to Scotch beef, Welsh lamb, Melton Mowbray pork pies, Arbroath smokies, Yorkshire Wensleydale, Newcastle Brown Ale and the Cornish pasty.
Mr Vara
As it happens, the protected status of Stilton cheese prohibits people living in the village of Stilton in my constituency from making it. They researched the cheese and found that it was originally made in the village, but they are prohibited from making it by the protected status to which the hon. Gentleman refers. When we leave the European Union, they will be able to make Stilton cheese in Stilton.
Chris Leslie
Finally, we get some sign of life from Conservative Members. They are finally interested in the consequences of withdrawing from the European Union. This is an issue that the House should have the opportunity to discuss. Many firms, industries and producers, on both sides of this question, will either benefit or—probably—lose out, as a result of our exiting from the European Union in this way.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Blessed are the cheesemakers, wherever they happen to live, but may I return my hon. Friend to new clause 112, which deals with the European Chemicals Agency, and alert him to the fact that the Environmental Audit Committee is looking into the issue? I have the 200 pages of evidence on what withdrawing from the European chemicals regulations will mean for the motor industry, the defence industry and the pharmaceuticals industry in this country, and it does not make pretty reading.
Chris Leslie
As my hon. Friend says, there are serious questions about hazards that could affect our constituents and substances that pose dangers because, for instance, they may be carcinogenic.
We are disappointed in the Government not only because of their White Paper, but because they are trying to gag Parliament and prevent it from debating these issues. Muzzling Members on both sides of the House on these questions means that we will end up far poorer and far worse off, and it sends a message to the Lords that they will have to do the job of scrutiny and due diligence that we were unable to do. This is our only substantive opportunity to debate the Bill. Parliament deserves more respect than the Government have shown in their insubstantial, inadequate White Paper, which does not touch on many of the questions in our new clauses. We simply want to know what they plan to do, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will answer our questions when he responds to the debate.
Heidi Allen
I want to speak briefly about new clauses 171, 173 and, principally, 57.
I am proud to represent my constituency, which is home to some of the most impressive academic and scientific research in the world. We attract and grow the most innovative brains, and we do that by looking outwards rather than inwards. I know that the Government have confirmed that all EU legislation will simply be transferred to UK law on the day of exit, but I feel that particular attention should be paid to planning our future academic and scientific collaborations.
New clauses 171 and 173 request reports from the Government on the future of the Erasmus+ scheme and participation in the European research area. Given that our academic and research industries are two of our greatest exports and feature heavily in the business, energy and industrial strategy, such reports should be very straightforward. We need to give clarity and reassurance to those sectors, which I know are exceptionally worried about the future. The University of Cambridge, the Babraham Institute, the Wellcome Genome Campus and the Laboratory of Molecular Biology, to mention just a few institutions in my constituency, are extremely important to national prosperity, and they deserve priority in the Government’s thinking.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a very important speech, but is she aware that it is not necessary to leave behind all those EU agencies? When it comes to research and development, for example, Israel belongs to Horizon 2020. Does the hon. Lady not think that the Government should look into that, and consider the granting of such a status to this country?
Heidi Allen
I entirely agree. I think that what is most important is for Ministers to listen to organisations such as those in my constituency in order to understand what they need. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has visited Cambridge twice since Christmas, because he is clearly listening, but we in the Chamber are not the experts. Those organisations are, and we should listen to what they say.
Mr Lammy
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems that universities are experiencing is that PhD students and other academics are choosing not to come to Britain now? That means that our global universities are losing out to Harvard, Yale and Berkeley, and universities in other countries.
Heidi Allen
I regularly speak to members of the University of Cambridge, because a couple of its colleges are in my constituency. Although numbers have not fallen so far, I know that they are very worried about what will happen in a couple of years. Universities are a fundamental part of what is great about this country, and they deserve our protection. That is why we need to look fully at the implications for them, and the Government need to listen.
The debate on new clause 57 is probably one of the most important debates that we shall have, because it concerns the continuing rights of EU citizens lawfully residing here before or on 23 June last year. I recognise that the Prime Minister has said that seeking reciprocal rights will be her earliest negotiation priority, and I also recognise that many EU citizens already have an automatic right to remain. However, the issue will continue to keep many of my constituents awake at night until it is resolved.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Like, probably, the hon. Lady, I have been written to by a number of my constituents who are married to British citizens but are EU nationals, and they are very concerned. I should have thought that the Government would give them some sort of comfort, because this is certainly creating problems within families.
Heidi Allen
Absolutely. I speak as a woman with a German mother. I think that on some occasions my father would be quite pleased if my mother were sent back. [Laughter.] He would agree with me about that. However, I do understand the rifts that this is causing in the community, particularly in my constituency, which is bursting with citizens of every nation in the EU who have families and relatives. However, it is not just the EU citizens who are worried; the communities that wrap around them are worried as well.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Is not the issue solved by the Government’s current proposals? When everything is brought into UK law by the great repeal Bill, all EU nationals here will continue to have the right to reside unless Parliament legislates to take it away, which seems to me to be inconceivable.
Heidi Allen
I am sure that my hon. Friend has made an accurate point. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that while there may be legal and administrative realities ensuring that people would never be sent home, the perception and feeling of those people is more important. We should cut through the red tape and give them clarity, because that is what they deserve.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Can we put this in context, so that people listening at home will understand and not feel unduly nervous about what is happening? Does my hon. Friend agree that 61% of all EU nationals living in the UK already have a permanent right to reside in this country, and that by the time the UK leaves the EU, that figure will have risen to between 80% and 90%? A very large proportion of EU nationals who are already in this country have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Heidi Allen
That is a valid point, but this should not just be about a piece of paper and whether a form has been completed. We already know of cases in which people’s applications have been turned down. This is not just about citizens who have been here for five years or 10 years. Every day, brains and skills come to my constituency. Should I discriminate against someone who has been here for two years, or for five years? No. Those people have a right to be here, and we should honour that.
Mr Harper
I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard what I said earlier, but I meant it very sincerely. More than 4,000 EU nationals do not fit the description that she has given. They are people who are here and have abused our hospitality by committing crimes for which they have been sent to prison. The problem with a blanket approach is that it will give those people the right to stay here. Having dealt with individual cases, I know that nothing will do more damage to the British people’s wish to welcome EU nationals than our not being able to deport people who came here as EU nationals and then committed serious crimes. Has my hon. Friend given any thought to that?
The Temporary Chairman (Mr George Howarth)
Order. In the brief time for which I have been in the Chair, I have noted that some of the interventions seem to be getting excessively long. I remind Members that interventions should be confined to a single point, and a short one at that.
Heidi Allen
You will be pleased to know that my speech is very short, Mr Howarth, so I do not have much more to get through.
Heidi Allen
If the interventions are long, my speech will be short.
Let me say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). Nothing is perfect, but should the policy that we make be based on a few bad apples or on the rights of thousands of fabulous citizens who come here and contribute? What we are discussing today is whether we should be offering unilateral rights to them before securing rights for our UK citizens abroad. I have a sense of what is the moral and right thing to do. I believe that we should be leading the way, and offering those rights unilaterally to EU citizens in the UK.
Heidi Allen
I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not. I wish to make a bit of progress, but I will give way again later.
Until we have that resolution, however and whenever it comes, this will prey on the minds of families and our NHS, and will damage the collaboration that is vital to the scientific and academic organisations in my constituency. Many of my constituents have lost all sense of direction, and are struggling to recognise the tolerant, open country of which they are normally so proud. The wounds of the referendum have not yet healed. Although I was grateful for the opportunity to probe the Prime Minister when she made her statement earlier today, I wish to repeat my request for her to keep a unilateral offer to EU citizens in her mind.
As time passes, I fear that the distasteful currency valuation of both our citizens and EU citizens will increase. If an early agreement is not reached—as the Prime Minister hopes it will—I will urge her to step in and halt the trading. We are talking about people. If the Prime Minister were to offer continued rights to EU citizens unilaterally, I believe she would pull the country in behind her. She would strengthen our collective resolve and push forward through the negotiations with the shared will of the 48% and the 52%. At the moment, those in the 48% in my constituency do not feel part of the conversation. Crucially, we would demonstrate that in this global turbulence Britain is, as it always has been, a beacon for humanity and for democracy, a principled and proud nation and—one day soon, I hope—leading the way with compassion and dignity.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
My hon. and right hon. Friends have tabled several new clauses, but we have a remarkable range of amendments before us this evening, so I will confine my remarks to those relating to the position of EU nationals wishing to remain and their rights to remain.
I want to explain why this matters to me as a Liberal and an islander. Those representing island communities understand that things very often have to run to different rules and we have different priorities. One of the most important aspects of keeping an island community viable, prosperous and growing is maintaining a viable level of population, and in recent years and decades the contribution of EU citizens to growing and maintaining the services and businesses within the island communities that it is my privilege to represent has been enormously important. It matters to my communities, therefore, that the position of these EU nationals who live in our communities, and who contribute to our public services and businesses, should be clarified; they should be given the greatest possible reassurance at the earliest possible opportunity.
There is no aspect of island life these days in which we will not find EU nationals living and working. They work in our fish houses, they work in our hotels and bars, they work in our hospitals, our garages and building companies, and they teach in our schools. If we go into the admirable University of the Highlands and Islands, we will find them leading some groundbreaking research there, especially in the development of renewable energy—a future for our whole country. That is why the position of these people in our communities matters to the people I represent, and they matter to me and should matter to us all.
Mr Vara
The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, is making a very good point as regards EU nationals; indeed, many colleagues have said likewise. Does he not accept, however, that while we talk about securing the position of EU nationals living in Britain, we as British parliamentarians have a duty to British nationals living overseas—we have a duty to make sure that they, too, are looked after—and that if we secure the rights of foreigners living in this country before British nationals overseas are looked after, we are neglecting our duty?
Mr Carmichael
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have worked in the past, and who I hold in some regard, that, bluntly, it is invidious to play the interests of one group of desperate people off against the interests of another group, and there is a danger of that emerging from what he is saying and the terms in which he puts it. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I also serve, reminded us, this was the evidence that we heard from British nationals currently living in other parts of the EU; this is what they want us to do, because they see that it is in their interests that we should do this. They see this move as the best, most immediate and speediest way in which their position can be given some degree of certainty.
The real importance of this move is the atmosphere that it would create. We cannot ignore the atmosphere that we have found in many of our communities since 23 June, and the spike we have seen in hate crime; and we must also think about the atmosphere in which the Prime Minister is going to open the negotiations after the triggering of article 50. The atmosphere will be so much better—so much improved—if we are able to say, “We enter this as a negotiation between friends and neighbours, and as such we offer you this important move for your citizens as a mark of our good faith and our good will.”
I also want to deal with one matter that was raised in the Select Committee, and which has been touched on today: the opportunity of EU nationals to secure their position by means of the permanent residence card. I say to the Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), that he should be talking about this to his colleagues in the Home Office, because there are enormous difficulties with it. [Interruption.] I see the Minister for Immigration is sitting on the Treasury Bench, too, and he will be aware that some 30% of the—expensive—applications that are necessary for permanent residence cards are currently refused. The evidence brought to the Select Committee was that this involves, I think, an 85-page form. The sheer volume of supporting documentation required for these applications is enormous. The level of detail that is asked about the occasions over the past five, 10, 15 or 20 years when people have left the country even on holiday and then returned, and the evidence required to support these dates, is unreasonable and is putting an enormous burden on those seeking this small measure of reassurance in the short to medium term. This needs to be revisited.
The unfairness of the situation came home to me when I saw a constituent on Friday, who brought to my office the letter she received in 1997 from the then Immigration and Nationality Directorate. She was told:
“You can now remain indefinitely in the United Kingdom. You do not need permission from a Government Department to take or change employment and you may engage in business or a profession as long as you comply with any general regulations for the business or professional activity.”
Nobody told my constituent in 1997 that 20 years later she was going to have to produce tickets to show that in 2005 she took a two-week holiday in Ibiza, or whatever, but that is the situation in which she now finds herself if she is going to achieve that small measure of security for her and her family.
The challenge facing our country at this point is how we go forward in a way that allows us to bring the 52% and the 48% back together. Our country faces an enormous challenge, and it is one that we cannot meet with the support of only half our population; we need all our people to be able to pull together. This would be one small measure that would allow the Government to bring the two sides together to get the best possible deal for all our citizens, whether they are British by birth or British by choice.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), although he might not entirely share the sentiment once I have finished my contribution. I promise that it will be a short contribution, in the interests of time and the number of Members who wish to have their say. I rise to speak against in particular new clauses 56 and 134.
There are some in the House who have said that the referendum result should not be respected because the people did not know what they were voting for. They are determined to find confusion where none exists. They say that the public voted to leave the European Union, but not the single market or the customs union. Members are arguing through these amendments that we in this House need to debate whether or not we leave the single market. I disagree.
The majority of voters who took part in the referendum said that they wanted to leave the European Union. Many of those who contacted me said that they wanted to restore our parliamentary sovereignty and sovereignty over our courts, to regain control over our immigration policy, and to strike out in the world and forge new deals with countries across the globe. Those aims are incompatible with remaining in the single market or in the customs union.
Caroline Lucas
I do wish that the hon. Gentleman would not rewrite history. I have some lovely quotes here. The present Foreign Secretary said:
“I’d vote to stay in the single market. I’m in favour of the single market.”
The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said:
“Only a madman would actually leave the market”.
That one speaks for itself. Arron Banks stated:
“Increasingly the Norway option looks the best for the UK.”
What the hon. Gentleman is saying is simply not the case.
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but those were selective quotes, taken out of context. How could it not have been clear what the public were voting for?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend honestly saying that the good people of Colchester sat in a variety of places where they might go to enjoy themselves mulling over the finer points of the single market?
Will Quince
I think my right hon. Friend underestimates the intelligence of the people of Colchester.
I would be more sympathetic to those tabling the new clauses if they had not voted in favour of holding the referendum. However, they supported it. They agreed to entrust this question to the British people. I remember when some on the other side of the House, namely the Liberal Democrats—although I question that name in the context of this debate—were calling for a “real referendum”. Well, we had a real referendum—the biggest exercise in democracy in our nation’s history—and we have been given a result. Those hon. Members just do not like what they heard. We should respect the instruction we were given by the British people. We were told that we were going to leave the European Union and the single market, and leave we should.
The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that we are leaving the single market. Those on the Opposition Benches tabling these new clauses should perhaps listen to the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord Ashdown, who said that
“when the British people have spoken, you do what they command”.
We do not need this debate. It is simply an attempt to obfuscate and delay the process. That is why I cannot support new clauses 56 or 134, and I encourage colleagues to oppose them.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I should like to speak to new clauses 29 and 33, tabled in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. colleagues.
The Secretary of State—who is not here for this debate—said with his usual braggadocio that he would produce a Bill that was unamendable. Today, we have a list of amendments that is 145 pages long. The ratio of lines in the amendments to lines in the Bill 580:1, which must be an all-time record. It is certainly a tribute to the productivity of hon. Members on this side of the House. However, the chutzpah of the Secretary of State was exceeded by the civil servant who wrote paragraph 14 of the Bill’s explanatory notes, which states:
“The impact of the Bill itself will be both clear and limited”.
No. The effect of the Bill is not clear and it is certainly not limited. The fact that hon. Members have tabled so many new clauses and amendments demonstrates why this debate on parliamentary scrutiny is so important.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), whose constituents voted leave in the referendum. Mine did too, and his speech was the perfect introduction to my own. I want to describe why it is also in the interests of those who voted leave that we should have proper parliamentary scrutiny. The referendum campaign was won on the slogan of taking back control and bringing back parliamentary sovereignty. We cannot do that without having proper parliamentary scrutiny.
New clause 29 is perfectly simple and straightforward: it proposes a quarterly reporting system during the negotiations. That would give the House a structured approach. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) complained about new clause 3—which was ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook)—saying that it would create problems of justiciability. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the requirement to produce a report once a quarter is not such a high or complex legal bar, and that it would not lead to extremely long litigation. It is a simple, practical measure.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Does the hon. Lady imagine that there would be no court cases about whether such quarterly reports conformed with the appropriate procedure? Is she aware of the chain of jurisprudence in judicial review that leads to the possibility of that kind of contest? What does she think would happen if the courts started intervening in the matter of whether the reports met the requirements of her new clause?
Helen Goodman
First, it is not clear that such cases would get leave of hearing. Secondly, any such case would be dismissed straight away, so long as the Government had abided by the requirement to produce quarterly reports. There simply would not be a case to answer. This is a simple and straightforward proposal.
Sir Oliver Letwin
So does the hon. Lady think that the Government would satisfy the conditions of her new clause if they simply produced one line saying, “This is our report”? Or does she believe that it would have to be an appropriate report? If that were the case, could not a court decide whether it was appropriate or not?
Helen Goodman
As the Chairman of the Select Committee said earlier, when we got into a discussion about the requests from the Opposition Front Bench, the nature of the report would be a matter for the Government. I am sure that the Government would behave in a reasonable manner if this provision were in the legislation.
As I was saying to the hon. Member for Colchester, my constituency voted leave. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading so that the Prime Minister would have the power to trigger our intention to withdraw from the European Union under article 50. However, the political legitimacy stemming from the result of last summer’s referendum does not extend to giving the Government a blank cheque for their negotiating objectives or for the way in which they conduct the negotiations. Everyone is clear that this will have major constitutional, political, economic and social implications for our relations with other countries and for the domestic framework of our legislation.
Given the lack of clarity, and the fact that there was no plan, I have consulted my constituents on their expectations and hopes, and on how they want these decisions to be taken. I wrote to 5,500 of them, and I held six public meetings. They felt strongly that they wanted Parliament to be involved. In fact, some of them thought that the negotiations should be conducted by a cross-party team. I said that I did not think that was terribly likely—
Helen Goodman
Let me tell the right hon. Lady about the views that were expressed in my constituency, even though they might be different from those being expressed in her own. When we discussed the social chapter and people’s employment rights, my constituents said, in terms, “You can’t trust the Tories.” It is because of that feeling—[Interruption.] Those were their words, not mine. It is because of that feeling that we need to have parliamentary involvement in the way this process is carried forward.
The Government have reluctantly come to the House with this Bill. I first requested that Parliament be involved on 11 July in an urgent question on article 50. The Government resisted, as everybody knows, and only came to the House because they were forced to by the Supreme Court. Some Government Back Benchers say that the negotiations are far too complex to do openly—the right hon. Member for West Dorset talked about 3D chess, for example—but I take the opposite view: it is precisely because the negotiations are complicated and multifaceted that lots of people should be involved.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The vast majority of the amendments—I think I counted 30—tabled by members of the Opposition basically call for a report within 30 days of the Bill coming into force setting out the Government’s approach in the negotiations. Does the hon. Lady imagine that Europe will publish reports on every one of these issues, setting out its approach in the negotiations? That would surely be giving away too much.
Helen Goodman
Had the hon. Gentleman been in his place to hear the fantastic speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), he would understand why my hon. Friend was proposing all those reports. I am speaking to new clause 29, which is about quarterly reporting by the Government once the negotiations get under way.
Another slight misconception among Government Members is that there is some best deal, but there is clearly no objective technical standard test. What is best in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) might be different from what is best in my constituency. I am not casting aspersions on the motivations of Government Members; I am being realistic. When the Prime Minister talks about building a better Britain and doing what is best for the country, I am sure that she is being completely sincere, but she stood in a general election in Durham in 1992 and received half as many votes as the Labour candidate. The truth of the matter is that the process is complicated and there are different interests. Parliament, which is the sovereign body of the country, should be able to participate fully in that process, and scrutiny is the basic first brick of it.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The net effect of the hon. Lady’s new clause is that the High Court, not Parliament, would decide on the adequacy or otherwise of the reporting. She would be ceding authority not to this place but to the independent High Court, which is contrary to what she is trying to achieve.
Helen Goodman
Look, I am sorry that Government Members feel so bad about losing the Supreme Court case last month. It is a shame. The Government were foolish to appeal after the High Court judgment. However, the fact that they have lost one case does not mean that they should become obsessed with the risk. It is as absurd as saying, “Well, we should stop having parliamentary questions for every Department once a month because they somehow undermine the Government.” Take Defence Question Time, for example. It happens every single month, but it does not undermine our security; it holds the Government to account. It is because the negotiations are so important that the Government should report back. I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here. Unlike some Government Back Benchers, I think he understands that this is not a technical issue; it is a political process. Involving Parliament and having proper parliamentary scrutiny is the right thing to do to build a national consensus, which the Government state is their aim in the White Paper.
New clause 29 is simple and straightforward and would require a quarterly reporting system during the negotiations. While the Select Committees are doing fantastic work in considering particular issues in great detail, it is extremely important that the whole House gets a regular opportunity to see how things are going and to provide the perspective of the different communities we represent. Out of necessity, I drafted new clause 29 without having seen new clause 3, which is obviously tougher than new clause 29, so some people will prefer one over the other.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The hon. Lady refers to guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens, and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is not in his place, stated the legal position. The Government could make that guarantee tonight, saying that my hon. Friend was correct, by stating that those rights would be grandfathered straight into the Immigration Act 2016. That may not be the preferred method for many in this House, but it would effectively guarantee EU citizens what they want. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Helen Goodman
I have not thought about that in as much detail as the hon. Gentleman, but it will be interesting to see what the Minister says when he responds to the debate from the Dispatch Box tonight.
As I was saying, we should have proper, structured scrutiny, and I am disappointed that we do not have slightly longer to consider all these matters in more detail.
Richard Fuller
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who expressed her view with her usual forthrightness. She was one of the first Members in the House to raise the complex issue of the customs union, for which I am very grateful.
Last July, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) moved an Opposition motion on guaranteeing the rights of EU nationals in the UK, and I was one of five Conservative Members to support it. It was an excellent motion to propose at that time, and thanks to that motion tremendous progress has been made in the Government’s thinking and statements. We are debating an issue on which there is unanimity of view about what we want to achieve. It goes almost to the point of parody: everyone is agreeing on a point about which they are then going to disagree. The fundamental question is whether placing such a measure in this Bill is the right approach to continue the pressure and achieve what my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) spoke about so eloquently.
Heidi Allen
My hon. Friend asks whether the Bill is the right place for such a proposal. Should it be that we in this country need legislation to orientate our moral compass?
Richard Fuller
I think my hon. Friend knows my view, so I will not dwell on that.
As I looked through the many amendments, I noted that they fall into three main categories: those that ask for or require scrutiny of the Government’s approach; those that seek to frame a position for the Government in the negotiations; and those that seek answers to an imponderable list of questions—most notably those from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). Each of those groups in turn is less worthy of the House’s attention. Scrutiny is relevant to how the House sees things proceeding, and I will listen carefully to what the Front-Bench team says about that. I am concerned, however, by some of the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) to which he did not receive answers. The idea that we would involve the Government in the negotiations, then involve Parliament in the negotiations and then also involve the courts in the negotiations brings the words “dog’s” and “breakfast” close together very quickly.
On EU nationals here in the UK, many of the contributions to this debate have focused on the easiest side of the argument. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) mentioned prisoners in the UK, and under last year’s motion those prisoners who have committed crimes in this country would be guaranteed the right to remain. We may want to do that, but it is a hard case to make that we should do that while not giving any consideration to British nationals in other EU countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire might say, we would then seem to be losing our moral compass through legislation.
A number of Members have cited specific examples of where prisoners would already be guaranteed rights in this country. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to reduce uncertainty as we go through the process of leaving the EU, and one practical way of doing that is by knowing what the circumstances are for each of our constituents who come to talk to us so that we can explain to them that there is no need for them to be concerned because their rights are secure—the proposal will not cover all of them, and it might not cover as large a proportion as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) mentioned, but it is a practical example of where we can help to reduce uncertainty.
The third argument on this issue of EU nationals who have the right to remain here, upon which we all agree, is that we have focused all our attention on the Government Front Bench. Hardly anyone has mentioned Angela Merkel. As I understand it, and I get this from two very reputable newspapers—The Sun and the Daily Express—so it must be true, it was Mrs Merkel who said no to a deal. Where are the voices talking about pressing the German Government to make an agreement? I have heard plenty of speeches today about Donald Trump and how terrible we feel about his policies. Well, here is something that affects British citizens in another country and not a word from anyone.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by triggering article 50, we will simply give the EU27 all the rights to deliver our future? We would then have no negotiation, which is why we should delay article 50 and let the people have the final say on the negotiated package. As full members, we have negotiating rights. We would then have the power of time, and we would give the EU27 the incentive to come to the negotiating table because we might vote to stay in the EU.
Richard Fuller
The hon. Gentleman would not get a top mark in negotiation analysis at Harvard Business School. The last word the British public want to hear when it comes to this Bill is “delay.” Most people think we should get on with it, if they do not think we have done it already.
It is important for the Government to understand that messaging is important. There is uncertainty, and people feel that perhaps they do not have the right to remain here, so the Government must continue their progress in signalling to people not only that we welcome them here but that our intent is that everyone in the United Kingdom as a legal EU resident will be able to stay. We must not avoid, or fail to pursue, communicating that message.
Equally, the Government must avoid measures that give the optics to British citizens in other EU countries that they have been abandoned. One of the worst things of stating this in legislation is not that it is necessarily a bad thing but that the optics for British citizens in other countries would change dramatically. They would say, “Why have we not been protected?” They would feel even more vulnerable because of the inaction of EU Governments if the UK Government were, by statute, to have to take this measure.
I support the Government on this amendment, and I call on them to continue their progress on the issue to end uncertainty. Ending uncertainty is not just about the rights of EU nationals currently living in the UK; it is about wanting people in the European Union to come to the UK. The progressive message of this Government should not just end with the issues contained in the amendment. We should send a positive message that we will continue to welcome people from the European Union after we leave.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I support the new clauses and amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), and I will particularly address new clause 51, in the name of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith).
In particular, I support the argument for a White Paper that includes details of the expected trajectory for the UK’s balance of trade, gross domestic product and unemployment. A number of earlier contributions explained precisely why we need that. My hon. Friend said that Vote Leave failed to provide detailed answers to any of the key economic questions before the referendum and, of course, he is right.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is no longer in his place, demonstrated incredibly ably the confusion at the heart of Vote Leave and why taking a decision today is incredibly difficult. He effectively said—I have spoken to him, so this will come as no surprise to him—that no one in the leadership of the official leave campaign ever argued that we would join the EEA or have an EFTA-type agreement. It might be that the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), or one of the other senior figures, never quite said that, but to argue that the leave campaign did not suggest it, and suggest it strongly, is simply wrong. The leave campaign Lawyers for Britain said:
“We could apply to re-join with effect from the day after Brexit… EFTA membership would allow us to continue uninterrupted free trade relations”.
That was still on the website only a few weeks ago.
The former ambassador and Brexit supporter Charles Crawford appeared on “Newsnight” to argue that an EEA option may be the first step of Brexit. Roland Smith, the author of “The Liberal Case for ‘Leave’”, wrote an extended paper titled “Evolution Not Revolution: The case for the EEA option”, so I suspect that there were many people who, indeed, voted for Brexit believing that we were not voting for a hard Tory cliff-edge Brexit and that we would maintain membership of the EEA, EFTA or an equivalent. Given that that now no longer appears to be the case, it is absolutely right, as new clause 51 makes clear, that we have details of the expected trajectory of the balance of trade, GDP and unemployment. Those are not abstracts; they are at the heart of the measurement of our economy, of wages, of living standards and of economic growth. They are the platform for tax yield, which pays for our vital public services. All those words and concepts were almost entirely absent from what I will generously call the first White Paper.
I gently observe that it is not good enough for the Government to produce, after a referendum, a White Paper that is little more that the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech dressed up with a few pictures and a couple of graphs. That is not the basis for the economic plan necessary to mitigate the huge potential damage to the economy from a hard Tory Brexit. Make no mistake, that is what we are facing.
Will Quince
Did the Government leaflet, at great cost, not exactly make the point that single market membership was not an option and that access would be the result of a leave vote in the referendum?
Stewart Hosie
Many things were said, which is my point. Some might argue that being in the EEA or a member of EFTA precisely gives one not just access to but membership of the single market—one could call it access if one likes. There was deep, deep confusion in the messaging of the no side, which must be rectified now with proper details on the trajectory of the key economic numbers before more decisions are taken.
I say that we are facing a hard Brexit, and let us understand what has been said. The leaked Treasury document last November suggested that the UK could lose up to £66 billion from a hard Tory Brexit and that GDP could fall by about 9.5% if the UK reverted to WTO rules. I accept that that is a worst-case scenario, but if the circumstances that lead us to that catastrophe occur and we do not have a plan to mitigate it, the guilt would lie with the Government for failing to plan. The final part of that—the “if we revert to WTO rules”—is key, because the Prime Minister has said that a bad deal is worse than no deal. That is very twisted logic, because no deal is the worst deal; it means we revert immediately to WTO rules, with all the tariffs and other regulatory burdens that that implies.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
Order. I am anxious to get in as many of the people who have sat throughout the debate as possible. There is no time limit and I am not going to impose one, but if those who remain take five minutes, or preferably fewer, it might be possible to get everyone in.
Dr Wollaston
I wish to start by reading something from a letter I have received from a constituent. He talks about his wife, who was born in the Netherlands. He writes:
“She has lived in this country for over 30 years, brought up three British children and is completely integrated into the life of her local town. She is not part of any ‘immigrant community’. She just lives here and is fully at home here. Until now, she has never seen herself as an outsider and has been able to participate fully in local life, thanks to her rights as an EU citizen. In two years’ time, she will lose those rights and be a foreigner, dependent on the good will of the Government of the day.”
I have written back to and met my constituent, because I think it is inconceivable that our Prime Minister would separate this family. However, many people are not reassured, and he and his wife sought for her to have permanent residency. This involved dealing with an 85-page document, including an English language test and a test about life in Britain, which is insulting to someone who has lived here most of her life and brought up three children here. This process is also very expensive, but the final sting in the tail is that she finds she is not eligible, because she has been self-employed and has not taken out comprehensive sickness insurance. This situation is unacceptable. We need to keep our compassion and keep this simple. It is inconceivable that families such as this would be separated, so we should be absolutely clear in saying so, up front.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I understand what my hon. Friend is saying about her constituency surgeries. I have had a similar experience and it is deeply upsetting in many respects, but will she join me in reflecting that the EU and Chancellor Merkel could have come to a deal on this earlier? The reality is that they have point-blank refused to discuss it before we trigger article 50.
Dr Wollaston
I agree with that, and I have also heard from constituents of mine who are British citizens now living in the EU. But my point is that, come what may, it is inconceivable that we would seek to separate families such as this one. There is no doubt that many people are sleepless and sick with worry about this, and we have all seen them in our surgeries. [Interruption.] It is true. I am seeing these people in my surgery. We also need to consider the tsunami of paperwork that we will have to deal with in settling the rights of these citizens if we do not get on with this quickly. We need to keep this simple. There is no way that families such as this should be subjected to vast bureaucracy and vast expense. We all know that this needs to be settled, so in negotiating, surely, making a bold, open offer as a gesture of good will can do nothing but good in this situation.
Richard Fuller
I agree with my hon. Friend, but my question to her is: can she cast any thought on why the Chancellor of Germany refused the offer?
Dr Wollaston
I have no idea why this is happening, but I am saying, as an important point to the Chancellor of Germany, that making this clear unilateral offer is the right thing to do, and we should get on and do it. There is no reason not to do so. Even if other countries were to take an obstructive and unreasonable line, it would still be inconceivable that our Prime Minister would separate families such as my constituents. So let us get on with this.
Anna Soubry
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Prime Minister has given her word that this will be a priority and she clearly hears the compassion that my hon. Friend reflects for her constituent, as we all do for all our constituents? We must, as I certainly do, accept the word of the Prime Minister that this will be her priority and that she will sort it.
Dr Wollaston
I thank my right hon. Friend for that. Like her, I do trust the Prime Minister, and that is why I have taken a very reassuring line with my constituents. However, there is no substitute for a clear statement from our Prime Minister that, come what may, families such as this will not be separated, because that is the reassurance they seek. I hear what my right hon. Friend says, but I think we should get on and make that offer, because it can be nothing but good to do so.
I also hope the Prime Minister will take further action on the issue of those who work in our NHS and social care. One in 10 of the doctors who works in our NHS comes from elsewhere in the EU, and I would like to say thank you, on behalf of the whole House, to all those workers and to all those who are working in social care. It would also be very much a positive move if we could say, up front, that those who are working here will be welcome to stay and make it very clear that we will continue to make it easy to welcome people from across the EU to work in social care and in our NHS.
Owen Smith
I shall make a short, pointed speech, because a lot of other Members have been present throughout the debate and wish to speak. It is extraordinary that we are debating one of the most, if not the most, important economic, social and strategic decisions that this House has had to make—certainly in the six years I have been here and arguably for 70 years—in a few short days and hours.
I shall speak to new clause 51, which I tabled. It is a simple, good-hearted new clause that would get the Government to come clean with the country and explain what they think the effect of Brexit is going to be for our constituents and for the national interest. It refers to labour rights, health and safety legislation, environmental protections and, most importantly, the impact we are likely to see on our GDP and balance of trade—the fundamental metrics that dictate whether we succeed or fail as a nation.
I tabled the new clause before we saw the abject, lamentable piece of work that the Government produced last Thursday: the 70-odd skimpy pages of the White Paper, 10% of which is actually white or blocked out. It is the whitest White Paper I think the House has ever seen. I contrast that with the 200-odd page report that the Treasury produced ahead of the referendum, which detailed the minutiae of all the impacts anticipated as a result of the changes in respect of GDP—[Interruption.] They chunter on the Government Front Bench, but when the Prime Minister was sat on that Bench as Home Secretary, she signed up to every line of that Treasury report, so it is entirely legitimate for the country to ask whether she is now living a lie as to what she thinks the impact of Brexit will be. Is she deceiving the country about whether this is going to turn out well for us, or not?
Let us not forget that the Treasury report suggested that the net impact on GDP of our leaving the European Union was going to be in the order of £45 billion per annum within 15 years. That is a third of the NHS budget. It would require a 10p increase in the basic rate of taxation to fill that black hole. It may well be entirely untrue. Perhaps it was just an estimate by experts in the Treasury that we should no longer believe, but if so, the Government need to come clean and tell us the current estimate.
Now that we know what the Government are planning to do—now that we know that we are gunning for the rock-hard Brexit that they hate to hear about on the Government Benches—what will the impact be? What will be the impact on trade? The Government were very clear about that previously. Under any circumstances, leaving the European Union will reduce trade by this country. It will make us “permanently poorer”, according to the Treasury, as a result of reduced trade, reduced activity and reduced receipts, which will force the Government to increase and prolong austerity. Those are the stakes we are playing for on behalf of our constituents in this debate.
It seems to me entirely right that if this House is to be worthy of the name of the Houses of Parliament, and if it is going to do its job as it is meant to and as it has done for centuries, we need to see the detail. We need to be clear about what this is going to mean for my constituents and for my children. If it is anything like the black picture that was previously painted, we must have a final, meaningful vote in this House on the terms.
We cannot allow this country to drift out of the European Union on a bad deal—on World Trade Organisation terms—which would mean that the £45 billion black hole in our public finances was realised. We cannot allow that to happen for future generations, and we will be held accountable by those future generations if this House sits by, supine and pusillanimous, allowing this legislation to be waved through the House for political purposes—that is, to end the 30-year civil war on the Tory Benches. I cannot stand for that, and we should not stand for that in this House. We should see the detail and hold the Government to account, and I will continue to do that throughout this debate.
Wes Streeting
I rise to speak to new clause 56, which was tabled in my name and the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope it will pick up cross-party support, because it places the future of our economy and of jobs and trade at the centre of the debate, which is where those matters should be. In leaving the European Union, as people have voted to do, there remains the outstanding question of what happens about our membership of the single market and the customs union. Contrary to what we were told earlier by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), those were not clear issues during the referendum. There were differences of opinion on the remain side and on the leave side. Given that ambiguity on something so important, it is quite right that Parliament, in taking back control, should at least give the Government a steer about the future trading relationship we would like to see.
As members of the single market and customs union, we are part of the largest free trade area in the world, giving us unfettered access to half a billion consumers throughout the European continent.
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is at best unfortunate that his Front-Bench team has not used its Opposition Supply days to have exactly that debate and, indeed, a vote on the single market, the customs union and the free movement of people?
Wes Streeting
I have a lot of respect for how the right hon. Lady has conducted herself during the debate, but her criticisms of our Front-Bench team, particularly the shadow Brexit Ministers, are particularly unfair. In any case, her criticism of our Front-Bench team would carry more weight if she was clearer about which voting Lobby she is going to be walking through on several crucial issues. It is all very well taking to the airways and speaking in the newspapers about the fight she will put up on these issues, but she has to put her vote where her mouth is.
Anna Soubry
I have made it clear that I very much hope the Government will see good sense, as is the case in much of the wording of new clause 110, and that some sort of compromise and sense can be achieved. I make it clear that in the absence of that I will perhaps find myself with no alternative but to go against my Government, which is the last thing I want to do.
Wes Streeting
That is terribly disappointing.
As members of the single market and customs union, we are part of the largest free trade area in the world. We have heard a lot about global trade and our relationship with the rest of the world, but what is often overlooked is that membership of the European single market and customs union facilitates global trade. In fact, the EU has more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than the United States of America, China, Canada, Japan, Russia, India and Brazil. Every single sector of our economy will be affected by the decisions that our Government make and the outcome of the negotiations.
Last week, the cat was let out of the bag—or should I say, with reference to the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), that the rabbit was let out of Alice’s wonderland? The right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that the idea that we will leave the most advanced and sophisticated free trade agreement in the world and countries around the world will be queuing up to give us as favourable terms that are as good for our economy is fanciful.
If that were not bad enough, we should listen to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne). My jaw dropped when I heard him utter these words. He said that the Prime Minister has chosen
“not to make the economy the priority in this negotiation.”—[Official Report, 1 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1034.]
We are leaving the European Union and there is a real risk that the Prime Minister is going to drive a coach and horses through the biggest single trade agreement and free trade area in the world, of which we are part, divorce us from the single market and the customs union, with implications for jobs, trade and investment, as well for the jobs of my constituents and the constituents of every Member of this House, and yet the economy is not the priority in this negotiation. That is an outrageous prospectus. How could any member of the Conservative party support a prospectus that does not place the economy at the forefront of our departure from the European Union? It is reckless and irresponsible. If the Opposition were behaving like that, the Government would attack us and say that we lack economic credibility. It is an absolute outrage that that lot on the Government Benches do not even put the economy on the agenda.
Wes Streeting
I am sorry, but I have given way already, and I am really conscious that others want to contribute. The Government should be seeking to get the best possible trading relationship with the European Union. I cannot fathom why the Prime Minister is not setting out to keep Britain in a reformed single market. Margaret Thatcher was the architect—
Wes Streeting
I will not give way. I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion so that other Members can come in. By the way, Mr Howarth, it is outrageous that we have not had enough time to debate these substantial issues.
Margaret Thatcher was the architect of the single market. The Prime Minister could be the architect of a reformed single market. As for the consequences, the choices and the trade-offs that lie ahead, whether on rules, freedom of movement or our financial contribution, we should not give this Government a blank cheque. They have not earned it. Any Government who enter a process such as this and say that the economy is not the priority do not deserve the trust of this House, and do not deserve the trust of the British people.
Caroline Lucas
I very much support the amendments that are designed to increase parliamentary scrutiny and I have put my name to many of them. I also support those amendments that would give the right to remain to EU nationals now here. That is a moral issue, which should be guaranteed now, not some kind of transactional calculation.
I wish to raise the issue of transitional arrangements, which has not yet been discussed and is covered by my new clause 36. I welcome the White Paper’s recognition that, if a deal can be successfully secured within a two-year period that starts when article 50 is triggered, we will not leave the EU literally overnight. There will be a phased implementation to give businesses the chance to adapt. That is not the same thing as needing a period of transition should two years not be sufficient time to reach an agreement. To have no idea of what that agreement will be is a glaring omission and that is what my new clause seeks to address. It would put in place a transitional arrangement to govern UK-EU trade relations during the period, if necessary, between when the UK leaves the EU and when a longer term agreement is concluded.
Given the short time available—it is expected to be two years, but in reality it will be more like 18 months given the requirement to bring the deal before MPs, the European Parliament and so on—the only option available if a deal has not been secured is to send Britain over a cliff edge. We would face having to leave the EU effectively overnight, crashing out of the EU on WTO-only terms. The Government have stated clearly in their White Paper that they want to avoid cliff edges, but at the moment they have done nothing to stay away from this one—perhaps they have been too busy looking the other way over the Atlantic and have simply not noticed it.
My new clause would provide a safety net. Given that both France and Germany will be preoccupied with national elections for much of this year and that the UK team has limited negotiating capacity and relative inexperience, it seems likely that two years will not be sufficient time to get the best deal for Britain. If we come to the end of the two-year period, we need a plan that is not just the default option of the wild west that is the WTO.
The Prime Minister says that she has unanimous agreement with the other 27 member states, and that getting that unanimous agreement is an option. We need to know that the option of continuing the negotiations has been specifically discussed, and we need to know it before we trigger article 50, otherwise we risk yet more uncertainty for our economy, for the citizens living in the EU and for all of our constituents. It is like jumping out of a plane to escape someone we have fallen out with but failing to double check that there is a parachute in the pack strapped on our back. What possible reason would anyone have for being so complacent or foolhardy?
Exiting the EU is really about two separate processes—
Caroline Lucas
I will not give way, because there is no time.
Many in the EU want us to conclude the divorce element, which comes with a potential bill of €60 billion, before discussing a trade deal. We must not forget that this is a negotiation. Article 50 covers only administrative Brexit, not the legal or trade aspects. If, after two years, we do not even have a basic divorce deal, it is possible that tempers will fray and patience dwindle, and the prospect of starting negotiations on trade deals in such circumstances is unlikely—to put it mildly.
The 27 other countries are likely to want the divorce settlement agreed via the courts, so trade negotiations may not be possible even if the political will is there. For all of those reasons, we need these transitional arrangements in place. I did not give way to Members, because I wished to allow time for others to speak. Let me just reiterate how frustrating it is that, in a debate of this importance, we are having to rattle through it at a ridiculous rate.
The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)
I call Jim Shannon. Before he starts, may I say that there is one more Member to be accommodated in the time available? I realise that time is tight, but if he could be brief that would be helpful.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I must start by thanking the Government for keeping the promise in the referendum. The Government said that they would listen to the will of the people and, in true democratic form, they have adhered to that. People in the referendum said that they wanted article 50 to be triggered by 31 March. That is part of the exceptional circumstances under which we are operating, and that is why we are debating this matter tonight.
My constituency voted 54% to 46% to leave the EU—
Jim Shannon
No, I will not give way.
With that in mind, it is clear that we wish to see the Bill make progress. I hope that we will not face more efforts to derail the process today. The train is en route and is going at a steady pace. Our duty and the duty of Government is to set the tracks in the right way—a strong and safe track—to carry us out of Europe and back to independence.
As a Northern Ireland MP, specific issues relating to our border with the Republic of Ireland, our businesses, our farming community and other communities are unique to us. I have every faith in our Prime Minister and her team and the discussions that she had with the Taoiseach in the Republic of Ireland just last week. The body language and the verbal contact were positive, and we should have every faith in what goes forward.
I just want to refer to new clauses 6 and 14. There is an argument that they do not make it clear to whom the protections apply, and that is to do with their scope. I am proud of the fact that I hail from a constituency that has a massive agri-food industry, which includes businesses that not only supply to the UK, but are globally recognised and trusted. I have manufacturers which ship to the middle east, America and Europe, and are now branching out to the far east. Mash Direct, a major employer in my constituency, employs some 40% of its workforce from eastern Europe. For Willowbrook Foods, the figure is 60%. We also have Lakeland Dairies, which covers Pritchitts Foods and Rich Sauces. All those businesses provide some 2,000 jobs in total.
Some of the workers have met and married locals, so there must be no road blocks to their ability to remain and work in this country and live their lives. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs visited Northern Ireland a couple of months ago and saw some of those factories and spoke to the people. She told me that she was very keen to ensure that the people working in the factories will have security of tenure and I fully support that.
However, I must underline my opening remarks and say that those who are living, working and integrating in our society and local economy deserve our protection. The Prime Minister is well within her rights to ensure that those who live and work here, or who are married to a British person, should have the ability to remain. None the less, there is no doubt that we must curb migration, which does not enhance life in the UK in relation to economic migrants. We must also ensure that our paramount concern is allowing businesses to continue to retain their workforce without fear and to have the ability unequivocally to offer job security to that workforce in order to keep the workers right here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Julian Knight
I will keep my comments brief as I am aware of the shortage of time. I was for remain in the referendum mainly because of the potential for short and medium-term economic dislocation, particularly within my constituency, which is likely to have among the highest trade surpluses with the EU, mostly off the bonnet of the Jaguar Land Rover cars that we sell into the single market. The debate was lost, and I still think we face difficult times ahead.
I believe in free trade. We have to strike out as best we can, but it will be tough in a world of growing protectionism. When we leave the EU, the key is to make the best possible deal. For me, that does not mean having membership of the single market. During the referendum campaign and for years before, the message on the doorsteps was loud and clear: no freedom of movement. People do not want freedom of movement, but the single market comes with that requirement so that is off the table straightaway, as the Prime Minister has made clear.
The difficulty with being in the customs union is that we would not be able to have our own trade deals with the rest of the world. We would be hamstrung. The European economic area, customs unions and single market membership are antechambers to entering the EU. We are leaving the EU. We are a country of 65 million people with a sophisticated, large economy, so it is completely inappropriate to have that type of model. We need our own model, and any attempts to frustrate that with amendments or to make the Government expose their hand too early, will damage our negotiations.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)
This short Bill has attracted a large number of new clauses that fall into a number of broad categories. I will first deal with the issue of parliamentary scrutiny, which has engaged the attention of a large number of hon. and right hon. Members. From listening to the debate, I am clear that there is actually a considerable amount of common ground across the Chamber. The Government also agree that parliamentary scrutiny is essential as we withdraw from the European Union. Indeed, the whole object of leaving the European Union is to ensure that our Parliament can take back our own laws. For that purpose, scrutiny is essential.
I recognise the thoughtfulness in the wording of many of the amendments that seek to formalise the mode of scrutiny, but it will probably surprise nobody that I will not accept any of them. This is a straightforward Bill that gives us the means to respect the result of the referendum and the judgment of the Supreme Court. As the Court made absolutely clear, this is about not whether we leave or the terms on which we leave, but simply the mechanics under which we trigger the process of leaving. In many cases, the amendments discussed today have virtually nothing to do with the Bill, and I resist them for two principal reasons. First, many are unnecessary in that what they seek to achieve is effectively already being done by the Government. No one can deny that the Secretary of State, as the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) recognised, has been assiduous in his engagement with Parliament. The process has been the source of intense scrutiny over the past seven months.
Stephen Gethins
Will the Minister tell us whether reassuring EU nationals is unnecessary?
Mr Jones
I will come to EU nationals later. As I explained a moment ago, I am currently dealing with the issue of scrutiny, not with the issue of EU nationals.
One can see from the Secretary of State’s record of engagement that he has given an oral statement on an almost monthly basis—far more than the bimonthly or quarterly updates to Parliament requested in the new clauses. Ministers from across Government have been at this Dispatch Box many times to debate our EU exit. The Prime Minister has given a statement after every Council, including one today. That is in addition to holding debates on the EU exit in Government time, and 15 appearances at Select Committees by Ministers and officials from all Departments.
Helen Goodman
I am pleased that the Minister understands that parliamentary scrutiny is essential, but we have heard from Government Back Benchers that everything will have to close down once the negotiations begin. Therefore, what has happened in the past seven months is not, strictly speaking, relevant to what will happen over the next two years. The purpose of new clause 3 and new clause 28 is to provide forward-looking scrutiny.
Mr Jones
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. However, it is not the case that everything will, as she puts it, “close down”. There will certainly be negotiations and it is important that they continue, to a certain extent, with privacy. At the same time, the Government have made it clear, time after time, that we fully appreciate the need for engagement with and scrutiny by Parliament, provided, of course, that it does not adversely affect the negotiations.
Geraint Davies
Does the Minister agree that the final deal should in fact be scrutinised by the British people, who should have the final say on whether it represents their reasonable expectations when they voted to leave? If it does not, they should have the chance to stay in the EU.
Mr Jones
The British people have had their say very clearly: they have instructed this Parliament that they wish to leave the European Union. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like that result, but that is the hard fact.
We have aimed at all times scrupulously to fulfil Parliament’s legitimate need for information, and we will continue to do so. As well as keeping Parliament informed, we will pay regard to all the motions passed on the outcome of negotiations associated with the Bill—as proposed in new clause 176—just as we have already paid regard to the motions passed on Opposition days on 12 October and 7 December.
On the provisions of new clause 3 concerning information sharing, the Secretary of State has been clear since the very early days following the referendum that he will keep Parliament at least as well informed as the European Parliament as the negotiations progress. The new clause asks us to reaffirm that position so that Parliament receives the same documents that the European Parliament or any of its committees receive from the Council or the Commission.
The Government are absolutely resolute that the House will not be at an information disadvantage compared with the European Parliament, but the new clause is flawed, simply because the United Kingdom Government may not be privy to what information is passed confidentially between the Commission, or the other EU institutions, and the Parliament. In the same way, the House would not expect the Government to pass all our documents relating to a highly sensitive negotiation to the other side.
What I can do, however, is confirm that the Government will keep Parliament well informed, and as soon as we know how the EU institutions will share their information, we will give more information on what Parliament will receive and on the mechanisms for that, including on the provision of arrangements for the scrutiny of confidential documents.
The second category of amendments and new clauses, which, again, I must resist, because they pre-judge the negotiations to follow, ask for formal reporting on myriad subjects or for votes on unilateral commitments. The exact structure of the negotiations has not yet been determined and may very well be a matter for negotiation itself. Therefore, setting an arbitrary reporting framework makes no sense at all. There will be times when there is a great deal to report on, and times when there is very little. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have already made serious undertakings as to how they will report to the House.
Chris Leslie
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know there are a lot of issues to be covered. However, to take just the example of the European arrest warrant, could he at least give us an indication of what the Government’s objectives are? Does he want us to stay part of it?
Mr Jones
Clearly, we require, and we are looking to achieve, close co-operation with the European Union on security matters, but, again, these will be a matter for negotiation, and as the negotiations progress, we will keep the House informed.
The commitments that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have given are important. That is why the Government published the White Paper on our negotiating position last week, with an introduction by the Prime Minister, once again stating our clear aims for the negotiations. That includes, for example, the implementation phases referred to by hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—those are part of our objectives.
Mr Jones
No, I will not give way, because I have little time.
The Secretary of State announced in the recent White Paper that there will be a further White Paper published on the great repeal Bill so that Parliament can be fully informed of the provisions of the Bill in good time. After that, the Government will continue upholding their commitment through the primary and secondary legislation that will undoubtedly be required.
New clauses that ask for specific reporting to Parliament after article 50 is invoked, including new clauses 3, 20, 22, 29, 51, 111 to 130, and 151—on our relationship with EU agencies, competition policy, environmental regulations, the UK renewables sector and virtually every other aspect of our relationship with the EU—are dangerous. They would bind us to an inflexible timetable of updates as we try to navigate a complex set of negotiations.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I am following the Minister’s speech carefully. Does he agree that it is a mistake to put the procedures of this House into primary legislation, giving the courts an unnecessary locus to interfere with our affairs?
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point. If these provisions were put into the Bill, there is no doubt that they would become justiciable, therefore leading to further delay. What this country requires at the moment is certainty and speed, and instead we would have uncertainty and delay.
Caroline Lucas
Would the Minister acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that a new trade agreement will not be agreed in a very tight two-year period? If he does acknowledge that that is a risk, why will he not put in place a transitional arrangement to protect our businesses from crashing out of the EU without such an arrangement?
Mr Jones
I can go no further than what I have already said. Of course, transitional arrangements require bilateral agreement. We have already indicated that that is what we are aiming at, but it takes two to tango in this regard.
Amendment 78 would require the Foreign Secretary to publish a work programme for UKRep for the duration of the negotiating period. This is simply an attempt to delay notification by creating new obligations on and impediments for the Government.
I turn now to a matter that has, quite understandably, exercised a large number of colleagues. I want to refer to these amendments and new clauses in detail. They relate to the status of EU citizens. Providing certainty for this group of people is an important issue for the Government. That is why the Prime Minister, in her speech, made it one of our 12 priority objectives for negotiations.
Mr Jones
I will not give way, I am afraid—I have very little time.
While these amendments call for different cut-off dates and vary in wording and terminology, they all share the same aim—to guarantee the status of EU nationals currently in the UK. The Government wholeheartedly agree with this aim. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, most recently this very afternoon, securing the status of EU nationals is one of the foremost priorities of this Government. We have stood ready to reach an agreement from the beginning, because it is not in anyone’s interest to allow any uncertainty over this issue to continue.
Mr Jones
I will not give way because I have little time.
As the Prime Minister told the House this afternoon, the Government recognise that European citizens who are resident in the UK make a vital contribution both to our economy and to our communities. That contribution was highlighted very personally in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa). Without them, we would all be poorer, not least our important public services such as the national health service.
Mr Jones
I will not give way any further.
This is less an issue of principle than of timing, with a few EU countries insisting that there can be no negotiation without notification, and that therefore nothing can be settled until article 50 is triggered. We could not be clearer about our determination to resolve this issue at the earliest possible opportunity, ensuring that the status of UK nationals in the EU is similarly protected. Some hon. Members have called for a unilateral guarantee now, but we have a very clear duty to UK citizens living in other EU member states, of whom there are about 1 million, to look after their interests and provide as much certainty as possible for their futures as well. Some hon. Members have suggested that we should, in effect, offer a unilateral guarantee to EU nationals in the UK while at the same time failing to achieve security for our own nationals abroad. That is a course that would carry the risk of a prolonged period of stressful uncertainty for them, which we are not prepared to accept. Only after we have passed this Bill into law can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister trigger article 50—
Mr Jones
I will take no further interventions; I am sorry. Only after the Bill has become law can my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister trigger article 50 and thus provide certainty not only to EU nationals living within our borders, but to our nationals overseas.
New clause 33 calls on the Prime Minister to set out a draft framework, especially with regard to the new immigration system, prior to notification. We have already set out in our White Paper that we will introduce an immigration Bill, and I reassure colleagues that Parliament will have a clear opportunity to debate and vote on the matter. The great repeal Bill will not change our immigration system; that will be done by a separate immigration Bill and subsequent secondary legislation. Nothing will change for any EU citizen, whether they are already resident in the UK or moving from the UK, without Parliament’s approval.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is doing a fantastic job in this position on behalf of the British people. We are all concerned about our constituents who are EU citizens and who want certainty on this matter, but I am advising my constituents who express concern to me that they should write to their own Governments, who are standing in the way of sorting out this problem. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that foreign Governments who are standing in the way of a settlement on the matter are left in no doubt that we find that objectionable?
Mr Jones
Bear with me. This will be a matter for negotiation in due course, but ultimately we must all be conscious of the fact that we are dealing with human beings—families, and people who are concerned about their futures and their careers. Not only do we have a duty in that regard, but there is a duty right across the European Union to protect the interests of those individuals.
Mr Jones
I will give way in a moment. I can tell the House that I have discussed the matter on numerous occasions with my EU counterparts. They assure me that they fully understand that it is an issue of simple humanity that must be put at the top of the agenda when the negotiations commence. We must wait until the negotiations commence, and until they do, we must not make any concessions.
Margaret Ferrier
I thank the Minister for finally giving way. I want to talk about my constituent Mr Joerg Nueter, who is from Germany and who came to see me on Friday. He has lived in Scotland for almost four years, and he is understandably concerned about his future and the uncertainty surrounding his residency. There is nothing preventing the Government from providing that certainty to him and to millions tonight. Will the Minister do that now?
Mr Jones
We owe the primary responsibility to our citizens in EU countries, but we also owe a duty to EU nationals in this country to ensure that their interests are protected. Frankly, this is a matter for their Governments, too.
This has been an interesting, lengthy and important debate, but I must resist all the new clauses and amendments.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be very brief. I am pleased that the Minister has recognised the thoughtfulness of new clause 3 and other new clauses and amendments, and I note his intention to keep the House well informed. It is deeply disappointing that he has resisted new clause 3, however, so we seek to test the will of the Committee on the matter.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Chris Leslie
On a point of order, Ms Engel. I seek your guidance on how right hon. and hon. Members can divide on some of these incredibly crucial issues. The knife in proceedings has curtailed not just debate but our opportunity to vote on such incredibly important matters as the European arrest warrant and the single market. What can be done? Why could we not have more votes on these new clauses?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
Before I answer the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, I should say that any further points of order will bite into the next group of amendments.
The Chairs, the Temporary Chairs and the Clerks spent a long time looking at every amendment in detail over three days, and we decided that we would put the lead new clause to a Division today and then move on to the second group. I also just want to take this opportunity to say that the Committee will vote on the issue of EU nationals on Wednesday. It is not for the Chair to explain why a decision has been taken. It has been taken, and there will be no explanation of it.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. On that note, unless there are any new points of order, I think that we should move on. It is important that we allow as much time as possible to debate the next group of amendments.
Wes Streeting
Further to that point of order, Ms Engel. I am grateful to you. I do not think that any hon. Member would want to challenge the Chair’s decision. In the previous group, we discussed dozens of amendments, including my new clause 56 on our future relationship with the European economic area. The former Chancellor said that the economy was not the Government’s priority in the EU negotiations. What can we do to make sure the public are aware that we are taking our scrutiny seriously?
The Second Deputy Chairman
That is not a point of order. It is very close to challenging the decision of the Chair.
The Second Deputy Chairman
I am happy to take the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but the next group is on devolved legislatures, so he will be eating into the time for the minority parties.
Alex Salmond
There is no challenge to the Chair in any of these points of order. Hon. Members are entitled to point out that this programme order is railroading debate on the biggest constitutional decision facing this country for 50 years. The Chairman’s Panel might have no alternative but to follow the programme order, but hon. Members are entitled to challenge it.
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. This is not about the programme motion on which the House voted. That was not a decision taken by the Chairs. I think we should move on.
Stephen Doughty
Further to that point of order, Ms Engel. I simply seek clarification of something you said a few moments ago about the selection of the lead amendment to vote on in each case. Is it the case that in respect of all the groups of amendments we are going to debate over the next three days, only the lead amendment will be voted on? If so, I think it would be of great concern to all members of the Committee.
The Second Deputy Chairman
It may be, but it is not necessarily the case. For this group, we decided that only the lead amendment would lead to a Division. Let us move on.
Mr Sheerman
Further to that point of order, Ms Engel. On that last point, we have to answer to our constituents. Many of them will not understand why many of the amendments that have been tabled, in which they are deeply interested, have not been chosen tonight in a very open or democratic manner.
The Second Deputy Chairman
I am going to move on. That is not a point of order. This was a decision taken by the Chair. It was a difficult decision, and I understand Members’ frustrations, but the points have been made and we really need to move on.
New Clause 4
Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations)
“(1) In negotiating and concluding any agreements in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, Ministers of the Crown must consult, and take into account the views of, a Joint Ministerial Committee at intervals of no less than two months and before signing any agreements with the European Commission.
(2) In the course of consulting under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must seek to reach a consensus with the devolved administrations on—
(a) the terms of withdrawal from the European Union, and
(b) the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.
(3) Subject to subsection (4) The Joint Ministerial Committee shall consist of—
(a) the Prime Minister,
(b) Ministers of the Crown,
(c) the First Minister of Scotland and a further representative of the Scottish Government,
(d) the First Minister of Wales and a further representative of the Welsh Government, and
(e) the First Minister of Northern Ireland, the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and a further representative of the Northern Ireland Executive.
(4) The Prime Minister may, for the purposes of this Act, determine that the Joint Ministerial Committee shall consist of representatives of the governing authorities of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(5) The Joint Ministerial Committee shall produce a communique after each meeting.”—(Jenny Chapman.)
This new clause would place the role of the Joint Ministerial Committee during Brexit negotiations on a statutory footing.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 23—Duty to Consult Scottish Government on Article 50 negotiations applying to Scotland—
“(1) In negotiating an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, a Minister of the Crown must consult Scottish Government Ministers before beginning negotiations in any area that would make provisions applying to Scotland.
(2) A provision applies to Scotland if it—
(a) modifies the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament;
(b) modifies the functions of any member of the Scottish Government;
(c) modifies the legal status of EU nationals resident in Scotland, and Scottish nationals resident elsewhere in the EU;
(d) would have the effect of removing the UK from the EU single market.
(3) Where a Minister of the Crown consults Scottish Government Ministers on any of the provisions listed under subsection (2), or on any other matter relating to Article 50 negotiations, the discussions should be collaborative and discuss each government’s requirements of the future relationship with the EU.
(4) Where a Minister of the Crown has consulted Scottish Government Ministers on any of the provisions listed under subsection (2), the Minister of the Crown must lay a full report setting out the details of those consultations before both Houses of Parliament, and must provide a copy to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.”
New clause 24—Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations)—duty to report—
“(1) The Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) must publish regular reports on the impact of negotiations in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on the European Union on the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(2) The reports shall be published at intervals of no less than two months, and a report must be published after every meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations).
(3) The reports shall include—
(a) a full minute from the most recent meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations);
(b) oversight of negotiations with the EU, to ensure, as far as possible, that outcomes agreed by all four governments are secured from these negotiations; and
(c) any other information that the members of the Committee, in concord, judge to be non-prejudicial to the progress of the Article 50 negotiations.
(4) The reports must be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and a copy of the reports must be transmitted to the Presiding Officers of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and the Northern Irish Assembly.”
New clause 26—Agreement of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1(1) until at least one month after all members of the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation have agreed a UK wide approach to, and objectives for, the UK’s negotiations for withdrawal from the EU.”
New clause 139—Requirement for debate on process for exiting the EU—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until—
(a) the Speaker of the House of Commons,
(b) the Lord Speaker of the House of Lords,
(c) the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament,
(d) the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, and
(e) the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly
have each certified that a debate has been held in their respective legislatures in relation to the First Report of the House of Commons Exiting the European Union Committee, Session 2016-17, HC815.”
New clause 140—Meeting with the First Ministers of Devolved Administrations—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until—
(a) the Prime Minister has met with the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to discuss the formal notification process and;
(b) the Joint Ministerial Committee has unanimously agreed to the Prime Minister making such a notification.”
New clause 144—Representation of devolved administrations in withdrawal negotiations—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until she has committed to ensuring that the devolved administrations will have direct representation in the negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.”
New clause 147—Scottish Government ministers—
“For the purpose of Article 50(1) of the Treaty on the European Union the words ‘in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’ shall be deemed to require the inclusion of Scottish Government ministers in negotiations between the UK and the European Union on matters which would be reserved to the UK by virtue of any transposition from EU law but on which competence would otherwise be devolved to Scotland under any Act of Parliament.”
New clause 148—Welsh Government ministers—
“For the purpose of Article 50(1) of the Treaty on the European Union the words ‘in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’ shall be deemed to require the inclusion of Welsh Government ministers in negotiations between the UK and the European Union on matters which would be reserved to the UK by virtue of any transposition from EU law but on which competence would otherwise be devolved to Wales under any Act of Parliament.”
New clause 149—Northern Ireland Executive ministers—
“For the purpose of Article 50(1) of the Treaty on the European Union the words ‘in accordance with its own constitutional requirements’ shall be deemed to require the inclusion of Northern Ireland Executive ministers in negotiations between the UK and the European Union on matters which would be reserved to the UK by virtue of any transposition from EU law but on which competence would otherwise be devolved to Northern Ireland under any Act of Parliament.”
New clause 158—Continued levels of EU funding for Wales—
“Before the Prime Minister exercises the power under section 1, the Secretary of State must lay a report before—
(a) Parliament, and
(b) the National Assembly for Wales
outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the National Assembly for Wales’ block grant.”
This new clause would require the UK Government to lay a report before the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on Welsh finances, before exercising the power under section 1. This would allow for scrutiny of the Leave Campaign’s promise to maintain current levels of EU funding for Wales.
New clause 159—Differentiated agreement for Wales—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until a Minister of the Crown has confirmed that Her Majesty’s Government will conduct a consultation exploring a differentiated agreement for Wales to remain in the European Economic Area.”
This new clause would require the UK Government to conduct a consultation exploring a differentiated agreement for Wales to remain in the European Economic Area, before exercising the power under section 1.
New clause 160—Endorsement of the final deal for withdrawal from the EU by the devolved assemblies—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must give a commitment that Her Majesty’s Government shall submit the terms of any proposed agreement with the European Union on the UK’s withdrawal to—
(a) the National Assembly for Wales,
(b) the Northern Ireland Assembly, and
(c) the Scottish Parliament
and that the Government will not proceed with any agreement on those terms unless it has been approved by each of the devolved assemblies.”
This new clause would require the Prime Minister to commit to gaining the endorsement of the final deal for withdrawal from the EU by the devolved assemblies, before exercising the power under section 1.
New clause 162—Review into the UK constitution—
“Before the Prime Minister can exercise the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must commit to conducting a review into the constitution of the United Kingdom following the repatriation of powers from the European Union.”
This new clause would require the Prime Minister to commit to conducting a review into the constitution of the United Kingdom when leaving the European Union, before exercising the power under section 1.
New clause 168—National Convention—
“(1) Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must undertake to establish a National Convention on Exiting the European Union.
(2) The National Convention shall advise Her Majesty’s Government on its priorities during negotiations with the EU on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
(3) Ministers of the Crown must take into account the views of the National Convention before signing any agreements with the European Commission on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
(4) Membership of the National Convention shall be determined by the Secretary of State and shall include—
(a) elected mayors,
(b) elected representatives of local government,
(c) representatives of universities and higher education,
(d) representatives of universities and higher education,
(e) representatives of business organisations,
(f) members of the Scottish Parliament,
(g) members of the National Assembly of Wales,
(h) members of the Northern Ireland Assembly,
(i) members of the European Parliament,
(j) other representatives considered by the Secretary of State to represent expertise and experience of British civil society.
(5) The National Convention must convene before—
(a) 12 months have elapsed after this Act has received Royal Assent, or
(b) the day on which Her Majesty’s Government declares that agreement has been reached on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, whichever is the sooner.
(6) The National Convention shall meet in public.
(7) The National Convention must, following its convening, lay a report before Parliament before—
(a) 15 months have elapsed after this Act receives Royal Assent, or
(b) the day on which Her Majesty’s Government declares that agreement has been reached on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, whichever is the sooner.”
This new clause would require the Government to establish a National Convention of representatives across of levels of Government, regions and sectors, to meet and produce a report recommending negotiating priorities, to better reflect the needs of the regions of the UK.
New clause 145—Differentiated Agreement for Scotland—
“The Prime Minister may not exercise the power under section 1 until a Minister of the Crown has confirmed that the United Kingdom will seek a differentiated agreement for Scotland to remain in the European Economic Area.”
New clause 150—Priority in negotiations: Northern Ireland—
“It must be a priority in negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU for the Prime Minister to seek terms that would not give rise to any external impediment to the people of the island of Ireland exercising their right of self-determination on the basis of consent, freely and concurrently given, North and South, to bring about a united Ireland, to then be treated as a member State of the European Union, if that is their wish, subject to the agreement and consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland.”
This new clause seeks to preserve the key constitutional precept of the Belfast Agreement, in respect of the principle of consent, applying to future EU membership of a united Ireland agreed by a referendum under the Belfast Agreement and the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Amendment 88, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert
“, provided the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly is obtained prior to such notification regarding alterations to the legislative competence of that Assembly and the executive competence of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee, consistent with constitutional convention.”
This amendment would ensure that the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly to changes in the powers of the Assembly and powers of the Northern Ireland Executive would be obtained prior to triggering Article 50, consistent with constitutional convention.
Amendment 91, page 1, line 3, at end insert “following consultation with—
(a) the First Minister of Scotland,
(b) the First Minister of Wales,
(c) the First Minister of Northern Ireland and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland,
(d) the Chair of the English Local Government Association the Mayor of London.”
Amendment 46, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) unless the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and National Assembly for Wales agree motions to consent to the notification.”
Amendment 55, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until the Northern Ireland Executive has been formed following elections in Northern Ireland on 2 March 2017.”
Amendment 60, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until the British-Irish Council has met to discuss the immediate effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the United Kingdom’s land border with Ireland.”
Amendment 63, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has addressed the Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and National Assembly of Wales on the process of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.”
Amendment 90, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has confirmed that Her Majesty’s Government will publish a report into the powers repatriated from the EU to the United Kingdom and which do not fall within the Reservations listed in Schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, outlining their impact on the competencies of the National Assembly for Wales.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to publish a report into the repatriated EU powers which fall under the competencies of the National Assembly for Wales before notifying under subsection (1).
Amendment 92, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) The Prime Minister may not notify under subsection (1) until she has laid before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the powers expected to be repatriated from the EU to the United Kingdom which are within the competences of Northern Ireland Ministers and the Northern Ireland Assembly under the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
Amendment 18, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(3) Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister must publish and lay before the House a report setting out how the devolved nations of the United Kingdom will be consulted with, and involved, in the negotiations in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on the European Union.”
Amendment 86, page 1, line 5, at end insert
“with the exception of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949, and subject to—
(a) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland of 10 April 1998, and
(b) preserving acquired rights in Northern Ireland under European Union law.”
This amendment requires the power to notify withdrawal to be exercised with regard to the constitutional, institutional and rights provisions of the Belfast Agreement.
New clause 109—Provisions of the Good Friday Agreement—
“Before exercising the power under section 1, the Prime Minister shall commit to maintaining the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent Agreements agreed between the United Kingdom and Ireland since 1998, including—
(a) the free movement of people, goods and services on the island of Ireland;
(b) citizenship rights;
(c) the preservation of institutions set up relating to strands 2 and 3 of the Good Friday Agreement;
(d) human rights and equality;
(e) the principle of consent; and
(f) the status of the Irish language.”
Jenny Chapman
New clause 4, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends, requires the Government to consult and take into account the views of a Joint Ministerial Committee at intervals of no less than two months and before signing any agreements with the European Union. The Labour party is trying to be reasonable in this new clause. We do not want to block Brexit, but to make sure that the Government do Brexit well. The new clause is very simple and, I think, very sensible.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales must be included and taken into account throughout the process by which the UK Government negotiate our terms of withdrawal from the European Union and, equally importantly, the framework for our future relationship with the EU. New clause 4 would place the Joint Ministerial Committee on a statutory footing. The Committee would include the Prime Minister, Ministers of the Crown, the First Minister of Scotland and an additional representative, the First Minister of Wales and an additional representative, the First Minister of Northern Ireland and their Deputy, and a further representative of Northern Ireland.
The Labour Party is committed to enabling the devolved Administrations to have their voices heard in this debate. Amendment 91, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie), proposes that, in addition, the London Mayor should be consulted—and Labour would, of course, support this position.
Alan Brown
The hon. Lady talked about voices being heard. Her party’s position on Second Reading was to vote for article 50 so that Labour could come forward with amendments. Those amendments in the last round have just been defeated. If all the amendments are defeated, will Labour stick to the line of walking through the Lobby with the Tories on Third Reading?
Jenny Chapman
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman is incredibly defeatist. We intend to win with our amendments; we are not here to anticipate defeat. We have very sensible and very reasonable requests to put to the Government, and we expect them to accept our amendments.
In the Miller case, the Supreme Court decided unanimously that the devolved legislatures did not have a legal power to block the Government from triggering article 50, but that does not mean that devolved legislatures can be ignored. A veto does not exist, but it is only right for the Scottish Parliament and the Assemblies in Northern Ireland and Wales to be respected, and for the different desires, concerns, aspirations and needs of the devolved Administrations to be taken fully into account.
Ian Paisley
As the hon. Lady will know, the White Paper mentions the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and clearly states that they will be given the right to be consulted. Why does that need to be included in legislation?
Jenny Chapman
I had anticipated that intervention from the hon. Gentleman, consistent as he is in raising such points. If he will forgive me, I shall deal with it later in my speech.
Sir Oliver Letwin
If the Government wish to proceed with article 50, and if SNP Members do not wish to proceed with it and that is the position of the Scottish Government, how are the United Kingdom Government meant to take this into account? What happens if someone takes into account the opposing view?
Jenny Chapman
I agree that it is difficult. [Laughter.] I do not think it is funny, but it is difficult. Our amendment does not require consensus, and if the right hon. Gentleman reads it closely, he will see that it has been very carefully worded. The fact that consensus is not easy does not mean that we should not at least try.
Chris Bryant
Is there not a bigger issue here? Many of the areas that have heretofore been the responsibility of the European Union are entirely devolved within the United Kingdom—for instance, agriculture and environmental protection. There is no way in which the Government will be able to proceed effectively with a deal on behalf of the United Kingdom unless they have managed to take the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments with them.
Jenny Chapman
Of course that is true. That is the spirit in which we tabled the new clause, and we hope it is the spirit in which the Government will consent to accept it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jenny Chapman
I have given way a few times already. I shall make a bit of progress, and then I will be happy to give way again.
It is true that, as the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) pointed out, consensus may not be possible, but it is deeply desirable, and probably in the national interest. Although competing priorities may ultimately prevent it from being achieved, we really ought to try.
Charlie Elphicke
Is it not the truth that the hon. Lady knows, we know and the whole House knows that the Scottish National party has no interest in reaching consensus on this point, and no desire to do so? She knew that before she put her name to the new clause. Conservative Members will be saying, “Surely this is just a wrecking new clause.”
Jenny Chapman
The hon. Gentleman needs to read the new clause a bit more carefully. It is clearly not a wrecking new clause. Nothing that it desires cannot be achieved. The fact that consensus may not be possible—although we have not even tried—does not mean that the interests of the people of Scotland ought to be ignored.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jenny Chapman
I am spoilt for choice, but I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making a very strong speech. I support the desire of Labour Front Benchers to put these matters on a statutory footing, but does she agree that, particularly when Governments have come forward with a clear plan—as the First Minister of Wales has—and there are serious questions for the UK Government, the UK Government must come forward with some answers to enable a negotiation to proceed?
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend is right. I am in danger of reading out my speech before I reach the part in question, but I can say that Wales has succeeded in reaching something close to a cross-party consensus.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jenny Chapman
I want to say more about the issue of Wales. The Government owe it to the people of Wales, Scotland—[Hon. Members: “Alex is being helpful.”] Alex is being helpful, I am told. I will give way to him.
Alex Salmond
I know that the hon. Lady, unlike Conservative Members, will have read the paper that the Scottish Government released before Christmas—the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) is nodding—but does she not remember that on 15 July last year, the Prime Minister said that she would not invoke article 50 until there was an agreed UK position backed by the devolved Administrations? Are Conservative Members saying that the Prime Minister was being anything less than truthful?
Jenny Chapman
That intervention would probably be better aimed at the Government Front Bench.
The Government owe it to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be as accommodating as possible. For example, the financial support for deprived areas that has benefited communities for decades is now in question. Whether or not the Government deal with this issue as part of the passage of this Bill, they need to know that the Labour party will fight hard for the grants to such areas to be secured into the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jenny Chapman
I have given way quite a lot and would like to make a little more progress. Many Members will want to contribute to the debate.
New clauses 23 and 24, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), which would receive Labour Front-Bench support should he be able to test the will of the House on the matter, strengthen further the role of the Scottish Government in making them a statutory consultee and require the Joint Ministerial Committee to report on negotiations. These are reasonable demands that the Government ought to seek to meet, and the same status should of course be offered to the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland.
It is fair to say that the White Paper lacks substance or detail. That is particularly true on Northern Ireland. The land border, changes to competences and, perhaps most significant of all, the importance of ensuring continued adherence to agreements made as part of the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements must be maintained by the Government.
New clause 109, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), states that the Prime Minister must recommit to the Good Friday agreement. I can see no reason why the Government should not wish to do so, and hope that the Minister will indicate whether or not he intends to agree to my hon. Friends’ amendments when he responds this evening.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady mentions the Good Friday agreement and the commitments in it, but as it was between the parties in Northern Ireland, the Government at Westminster and the Government in the Irish Republic, how do our discussions about Brexit have any impact on the Good Friday agreement?
Jenny Chapman
What we are asking for, and what new clause 109 asks for, is certainty. I do not think that that is too much to ask.
These amendments do not seek to obstruct the passage of this Bill—not in the least. They are born of a view that Brexit will be better for all the people of Britain if all communities up and down the country are properly involved. The Government should not hide away from this scrutiny; they ought to welcome it. Labour is not arguing for a veto; we are arguing for inclusion. Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not just another stakeholder group to be consulted. The four Governments, although they are not for this purpose equals, must work together.
Mr Vara
The hon. Lady speaks of veto. She will be aware—she mentioned this earlier in her speech—that the Supreme Court was unanimous on the role of the devolved Assemblies and that the decision should be taken by this place. We all agree on consultation, but she cannot possibly be speaking of veto, because if she does so, she is challenging the decision of the Supreme Court.
Jenny Chapman
I am not going to take it personally that the hon. Gentleman was not listening carefully to the beginning of my speech, but if he looks at the record he will find that his worries are unfounded. He also might like to read the amendment that we have tabled and find that he has nothing at all to worry about.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I understand the gentleness with which my hon. Friend is responding to the various interventions, but may I quietly, politely and in a modest sort of way remind her that if we read the Good Friday agreement in as much detail as many of us in the House have done, we can see that the EU is mentioned throughout, in line after line and paragraph after paragraph? The role of the EU in the peace process was crucial and must continue to be so.
Jenny Chapman
I will give way, but only because I cannot find my place in my speech. This is the last intervention I will take.
Sir Hugo Swire
I am delighted to be able to afford the hon. Lady time to find her place. Should she not think about disaggregating the Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in these discussions, because they are all different, particularly Scotland? Perhaps it is time, if we are genuinely to trust the Scottish National party Government in Edinburgh, for them to revisit their claim during the Brexit campaign that Scotland could somehow remain part of the EU outside the United Kingdom or have fast-track access to EU membership. That was one of the most shameful myths peddled by any party in the House.
Jenny Chapman
I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is going to have to put his misgivings about the Scottish National party to one side and focus on the people of Scotland, because it is their voices that we must ensure are heard in all this. This is going to require genuine commitment and goodwill. I can see that the right hon. Gentleman is going to find that difficult. I only hope that the Minister does not find it quite so difficult. I am sure that he already appreciates where the First Ministers will be coming from, but he needs to commit, through these new clauses and perhaps by bringing forth his own amendments as the Bill progresses, to embedding the role of the devolved Assemblies within the process. This has already been proved by the First Minister of Wales and the leader of the Welsh nationalists, who, writing together, said:
“The challenge we all face now is ensuring that as we prepare to leave the EU we secure the best possible deal for Wales. Together, we intend to rise to that challenge.”
If they can put party political differences aside and work together for the benefit of Wales, surely the Government can step up to the same challenge by accepting these new clauses and amendments. That is the right way to strengthen, and not weaken, our Union, as the Prime Minister herself says she wishes to do.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to you for calling me to speak, Ms Engel. I can see that Members are looking forward to this. There are a number of new clauses and amendments in this group, and Members will be pleased to know that I do not plan on speaking to all of them. I shall group them in a way that I think is sensible. There are some that are unnecessary, some that arguably do very little but run a risk of doing harm, and some that are outright vetoes on the process, which is completely unacceptable. There is one about a national convention, about which I will speak briefly, and a couple of very important ones about Northern Ireland, which I would also like to speak to.
Starting with new clause 4, to which the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) has just spoken, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) put his finger on it when he asked her about consensus. I think we need to explore this point further. The new clause proposes that
“the Secretary of State must seek to reach a consensus”.
My right hon. Friend pointed out that it was unlikely that any such consensus would be reached because the Scottish nationalists fundamentally disagree with our leaving the European Union. Not only that, but unlike the other First Ministers, they also do not wish to see a continuation of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] They have just confirmed that verbally in the Chamber. So it seems unlikely that consensus would be reached. The problem with putting this new clause in statute is that it would then become justiciable, as my right hon. Friend said earlier. A court could then be asked to adjudicate on whether the Secretary of State had tried hard enough to reach consensus. Even if the court then ruled that everything was fine, this would still be just a way of delaying the process.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Did my right hon. Friend also notice that the Opposition spokesman referred to “embedding” the Scottish Government in the proposals? Does he agree that, roughly speaking, that is like Wellington being asked to embed Napoleon in his strategy for the Napoleonic wars?
Mr Harper
My right hon. Friend has a much greater command of history than I do, but even with my limited reading I think he is probably about right.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) asked the hon. Member for Darlington to distinguish between the First Ministers of the different devolved nations, and I think the distinction is that the First Ministers of Northern Ireland and of Wales wish to see the continuation of the United Kingdom, but the First Minister of Scotland does not. That is material to the sensibleness of proceeding with new clause 4.
Sir Hugo Swire
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for praying me in aid; he is absolutely right. My real point is that neither the First Minister of Northern Ireland nor the First Minister of Wales sought to mislead their own communities by suggesting that they can join the EU outside the UK, which is what the SNP suggested throughout the campaign.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Ms Engel. Was what the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) just said in order? He accused the First Minister of Scotland of misleading the country by stating something that Members of this House in the Scottish National party have also said, so is he by extension accusing me and my hon. Friends of misleading the Chamber?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
It was not unparliamentary as the First Minister of Scotland is not a Member of this House.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
May I provide an example? Policing in Scotland is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and policing in Northern Ireland is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The consensus may be that the Government want to withdraw from the European Union and therefore from agencies such as Eurojust and Europol, but there might need to be a view on such issues so that a consensus can be reached to enable Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have devolved issues, to maintain policing at a local level with Ireland and other parts of the European Union.
Mr Harper
I have no issue with the Government seeking to reach a consensus. There are two issues. One, as I think the hon. Member for Darlington accepted, is that reaching a consensus is likely to be difficult, but we should try. I have no problem with Ministers trying to seek a consensus, but the danger of putting that in legislation is that we then hand over to a court the adjudication of whether Ministers have sought that consensus or whether they have tried hard enough. Even if the court ends up reaching what I would consider the right conclusion of not interfering in the process, it seems an obvious route for delay. The Prime Minister has made it clear that she will seek to take into account the views of the devolved Administrations, but I would not want that to be put into the legislation.
Ian Murray
While the right hon. Gentleman is talking about distinctions, I want to make another distinction as a reminder to him and the House: the Scottish National party is not the entirety of Scotland—[Interruption.] It might like to think it is, which is evident from the reaction from the SNP Members just now. New clause 4 is carefully worded and states that the Government should seek a consensus for building the negotiation with the European Union. That is about letting the Scottish people into the process, not the Scottish National party, and the right hon. Gentleman should distinguish between the two.
Mr Harper
While the Scottish nationalists are currently in government in Scotland, I completely agree that they are not the same as the Scottish people. On the new clause, the representatives on the Joint Ministerial Committee are the First Minister of Scotland and a further representative not of the Scottish people but of the Scottish Government, so there will be two members of the Scottish nationalists whose expressed purpose, as confirmed here today, is to destroy the United Kingdom.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand how serious this issue is? Does he not understand that he will not have a UK if he keeps going on with arrogance, with intolerance and with insensitivity? We spent 30 years getting a peace process together. We do not want to see any more dead bodies. Quite simply, what is going on here, with the intolerance that some Members are showing, is scaring me. I am asking myself why I am in this place at all.
Mr Harper
I have not been intolerant to anyone. I have taken interventions from both sides of the House, and I said in my opening remarks that I will address new clauses 109 and 150, which specifically refer to Northern Ireland. I simply have not yet had a chance to get to them. I am a great supporter of the Union of the United Kingdom and, when I was Immigration Minister, I worked very closely with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to facilitate the common travel area and the close working together of the peoples of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that, and I wish to proceed on that basis.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Harper
Let me make some progress, because otherwise other Members will not have the opportunity to speak. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was able to intervene on me. He is the lead name on new clause 23, on which I have a question. Subsection (2)(c) refers to
“the legal status of EU nationals resident in Scotland”.
It then refers to “Scottish nationals”. I do not quite understand what they are. I understand what UK nationals are, but I was not aware that there is a separate class of nationals of Scotland. Does he wish to explain to the Committee what they are? If for no other reason, not knowing what they are is reason enough to vote against the new clause.
Ian Murray
It is people who were normally resident in Scotland before they moved abroad. It is quite simple.
Mr Harper
But the hon. Gentleman just said that his definition of a Scottish national is someone who resided in Scotland before moving overseas. It seems to me that someone does not need to have any connection with Scotland bar the fact that they lived there for five minutes. This seems a very poorly worded new clause that is not worthy of support.
Ian Murray
I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that his Government’s pushing through the programme motion means that we cannot have a full debate on these issues. Whether it is a beautifully worded clause or a badly worded clause, EU nationals should be given the right to stay by this Government today, and we should be fighting to make sure that UK nationals living in the EU have their rights, too. The Government could do that now and, if they did, we would not need to press these new clauses.
Mr Harper
I will not address that issue now, as we debated it at length with the previous group of amendments. A number of colleagues spoke, so it has had sufficient debate.
The next grouping contains a number of new clauses proposing various mechanisms for giving different parts of the United Kingdom a veto on the entire process and, for that reason, I do not think they should be accepted. New clause 26, tabled by the Scottish nationalists, would effectively give the Joint Ministerial Committee a veto on the process. That means a single member of the Joint Ministerial Committee could veto the entire process, which would not be welcome.
Ian Blackford
Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that, in presenting this proposal to the UK Government, the Scottish Government are very much seeking that consensus and compromise. We understand that the people of England have voted to leave the EU, and we do not seek to frustrate that, but what we ask is that this Parliament also recognises that not just the SNP but the Scottish Parliament has empowered the Government to act in our interests to make sure that we remain within the single market. That respect has to work two ways, and it is about the UK Government working with us. If they do not do that, we know what the answer is. Quite frankly, we should not be in this place.
Mr Harper
I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me—I am sure my colleagues on the Government Benches will find this slightly repetitive—but he said that the people of England voted and I must point out that that is not the case. There was a United Kingdom referendum, one of two referendums over the past few years, both of whose outcomes I respect. There was a vote by the people of Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, so it therefore follows that the referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU was a UK decision. It was a single vote and the UK decided to leave the EU. Scotland did not have a separate decision; it was a UK decision. I respect both referendums and I am going to proceed on that basis.
Joanna Cherry
Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman to understand where Scottish National party Members are coming from. During the Scottish independence referendum, the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party, Ruth Davidson, told Scottish voters that the way to guarantee their EU citizenship was to vote to remain part of the UK. He enjoyed a cosy little exchange a moment ago about the First Minister allegedly misleading people, but it is clear that the leader of his party in Scotland misled voters during the independence referendum. Would he now like to take the opportunity to apologise for that misleading statement?
Mr Harper
I would not. The leader of the Conservatives in Scotland—I am pleased to say that she is the Leader of the Opposition in the Scottish Parliament and the latest opinion polls are showing Conservative support rising and Labour support falling—campaigned strongly both for the maintenance of the UK and for the UK to remain in the EU. I was disappointed by the latter result, as was she, but I do not think she misled anybody and therefore I do not feel the need to apologise.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend might not have had the chance to follow the Scottish independence referendum as closely as some of us. During that referendum the current SNP First Minister said that if the UK remained, the NHS in Scotland would be privatised. So if anyone should apologise for misleading the public, Nicola Sturgeon should.
Ian Paisley
When the right hon. Gentleman turns to the issues affecting Northern Ireland, will he take the opportunity to address the spurious point raised by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who said that the Belfast agreement is peppered with references to the European Union? There is one such reference on page 16, and there are three references on page 7 to the European convention on human rights, which is nothing to do with the EU. Indeed, the references to the EU refer specifically to the mutual interdependence of the North South Ministerial Council and the Assembly. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to get into a lather over that matter.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for elucidating that for the House. Indeed, I detected from the expression on the face of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Darlington, that she had not found that intervention from the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) entirely helpful. Perhaps she shares the view of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley).
Finally, new clauses 160 and 161, tabled by the Welsh nationalists, talk about “future trade deals” and would also give a veto to the devolved Assemblies in the UK. On that basis, the Committee should not support them.
New clause 168 proposes a “National Convention”. As someone who has been involved in constitutional matters for some time, I could not help but smile at that, because when I was taking a number of constitutional items through the House, national conventions, conventional committees or some other variant were usually a way of delaying matters by involving a whole load of people in things. These were usually people who are already well involved in all those things, as most members of such conventions appear to be elected Members of some body or other. Those conventions seem an extraordinary excuse to make no progress whatever.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I look forward to discussing this matter further in my remarks later, but perhaps I could raise a point with him. I am sure he will appreciate, as I do, the paucity of quality debate about the referendum, which remains an issue. We need to engage people in the discussion over the next two years. We should not reach the end of the negotiation period with people saying they are as ill-informed at the end as they were at the start.
Mr Harper
That is a helpful intervention, because the hon. Lady has tempted me to say a little more about her new clause, which I had not planned to do. I have looked at the membership of the national convention specified in the new clause, and it does not seem to involve any members of the public at all. It is all people who were very well represented in the referendum campaign: elected mayors; elected representatives of local government; people from universities and higher education; representatives of trade unions and trade bodies; representatives of business organisations; and Members of the Scottish Parliament—
Mr Harper
Yes, them, along with Members of the National Assembly of Wales and of the Northern Ireland Assembly; plus Members of the European Parliament. Finally, it gets to “other representatives”, but not just any representatives of civil society—only those determined by the Secretary of State. Interestingly, the hon. Lady wants to give Ministers the job of deciding who should represent civil society, which seems remarkably generous of her, although rather self-defeating.
Seema Malhotra
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is vital to have the regions of England involved as much as the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, in the national debate. I am sure that, on reflection, he will realise that there is great value in the idea of a greater national conversation in which elected representatives would be able to engage with their communities and represent their views.
Mr Harper
To be honest, I thought there was quite a lot of national conversation last year. When I talked to my constituents, it seemed to me that by the end of that national conversation, they really did want to make a decision and move on. The most important thing that they want us to do is give notice under article 50 and start the negotiating process. The most common refrain I hear is from people who, because we had a referendum last year, wonder why we have not already left.
James Cleverly
My right hon. Friend just ran through that list; does he agree that the people who were told that the referendum was an opportunity for them to express their opinion would find it perplexing, disturbing and not a little bit frustrating that new clause 168 would take that voice away from them and hand it back to people who are already very vocal?
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Ms Engel. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has been speaking for 22 minutes. Charming as he is, it seems that he has been filibustering the House, as he did in the previous debate, to prevent honest debate and opinion from being expressed this evening. What is going on?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are no time limits at this stage of a Bill. There is a limited amount of time available, as the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) knows. He has spoken at great length and he spoke at great length on the previous group. I have been listening very carefully and he has remained in order and spoken to the amendments and new clauses. There is nothing out of order in what he has said, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the mood of the Committee.
Mr Harper
I have taken interventions from colleagues on both sides of the Chamber, just as I did in the previous group, but I will take your admonition, Ms Engel, and not take so many interventions from now on.
I set out the points that I wished to cover at the beginning of my remarks. Colleagues who have been following carefully will know that I have only one point left, and I will cover it, because it is on the very important matter of Northern Ireland. Colleagues will be pleased to know that that is the last point I will make.
Two new clauses have been put forward on Northern Ireland. New clause 150 is about priority in negotiations, and it would ensure that people in Northern Ireland would have no external impediment to exercising their right of self-determination. Although it talks about bringing about a united Ireland, with which I do not agree, nothing in the process of exiting the European Union would have any impact on that. The legislation that governs the mechanisms available to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do with border polls and so forth have nothing whatever to do with this process, so there is no need to accept this new clause.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will recall that, even in his own remarks, he talked about the questions that were raised in the context of the Scottish referendum. I am talking about whether or not an independent Scotland would have easy or ready access to the EU or whether it would have to negotiate, brand new, under article 49. If Northern Ireland were taken out of the EU as part of the UK, no article in the Lisbon treaty allows for part of a former member state entering the EU. Anybody could raise a question mark over whether or not a referendum in that context would admit Northern Ireland into the EU as part of a united Ireland. The question mark could be raised because the German precedent might not apply. The Taoiseach addressed that point last summer, and the British Government need to take it on board.
Mr Harper
The hon. Gentleman may be guilty of jumping quite a lot of steps in advance. There is no evidence that the people of Northern Ireland have any intention, at any time in the foreseeable future, of joining the Republic of Ireland. I think that this is a case of inventing theoretical problems to get in the way of what is a perfectly sensible process.
Mark Durkan
Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the key wording in new clause 150 comes from the Good Friday agreement itself? The paragraph appears in the agreement not just once, but twice. It is in the constitutional issue section of the agreement and it is in the agreement between the British and Irish Governments. If it was good enough and important enough to be in the Good Friday agreement and to be endorsed by a referendum of the Irish people in the north and the south, why should it not be respected now when we are being asked to reflect on how English people voted in a referendum?
Mr Harper
Again, I come back to what the hon. Gentleman just said about how the English people voted. If he looks at the separate parts of the United Kingdom, he will see that both England and Wales voted to leave the European Union. As I said earlier, this was a UK decision. The fact that different parts of the United Kingdom may have voted in different ways is not relevant. It was a United Kingdom decision, and the United Kingdom voted to leave.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Harper
I have one more new clause to talk to and then I will sit down.
New clause 109 talks about the provisions of the Good Friday agreement, and other agreements agreed between the UK and Ireland. It lists a whole load of issues. It seems to me that the free movement of people, goods and services and so forth on the island of Ireland and citizenship rights are not guaranteed by membership of the EU. In previous legislation, such as the Ireland Act 1949, it is clear that citizens of the Republic of Ireland and citizens of the United Kingdom have reciprocal —the word “reciprocal” is important—arrangements to live in each other’s countries and to vote in each other’s countries. Irish nationals in Britain can vote in our elections. If we were to go to live in the Irish Republic, we could vote in theirs. Those arrangements will be preserved when we leave the European Union. The new clause is unnecessary.
Joanna Cherry
I am very disappointed to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his contribution, because, judging from the communications that I am receiving from constituents and voters in Scotland, every word he says is putting our vote through the roof and greatly increasing the cause of a second independence referendum. I urge him and those around him please to continue in the same vein, as it is doing us the world of good.
Mr Harper
Based on the Twitter trolling that I receive, I suspect that most people contacting the hon. and learned Lady would already have supported the nationalists in the first place. With the successful campaigning efforts of my friend, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, it seems that those of a Unionist disposition in Scotland are very much moving to support the Conservative party in Scotland, which is why she is the Leader of the Opposition there.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Natascha Engel)
Order. We really must get back to the group of amendments.
Mr Harper
I have been tempted to speak for longer than I had intended.
I hope that, after running through the new clauses and amendments in this group, I have set out reasons why all of them should be opposed by those who wish to trigger article 50. If any of them are pressed to a Division, I hope the Committeee rejects them.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I will speak to the amendments tabled in my name and in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends.
I take the House back to the morning of 24 June when the then Prime Minister, the then Chancellor and the current Foreign Secretary were missing in inaction, and the First Minister of Scotland took to the steps of Bute House to address the people of Scotland. Let us be clear: we absolutely respect how the people of England and Wales voted in the EU referendum. In turn, we ask that the way in which the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to be equally respected.
Forty-eight hours after assuming office, the Prime Minister travelled to Scotland to meet the First Minister. Ahead of her visit, the Prime Minister directly addressed the people of Scotland, stating that
“the government I lead will always be on your side. Every decision we take, every policy we take forward, we will stand up for you and your family—not the rich, the mighty or the powerful. That’s because I believe in a union, not just between the nations of the United Kingdom, but between all of our citizens.”
That is what she said then, but I turn the Committee’s attention to page 3 of what can only be described as an executive summary, as opposed to a White Paper, in which she refers to “one nation.” Hon. Members across this House would do well to understand that, as long as the Prime Minister and the Government continue to believe that this is one nation, they will make no progress whatever in their relationships with the rest of the United Kingdom. We are not one nation; we are a Union of nations. The Government need to remember that.
Alex Salmond
I am going to do something that I have never done before—quote an extract from The Daily Telegraph. It reported on 15 July last year:
“Theresa May has indicated that…she will not trigger the formal process for leaving the EU until there is an agreed ‘UK approach’ backed by Scotland.”
What does my hon. Friend think has happened to the Prime Minister’s commitment?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Interestingly, if hon. Members turn to page 17 of the so-called White Paper, they will see a change of wording. We have moved from having a “UK approach” to “seeking” to agree a UK approach—another change in the Prime Minister’s position.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
On that basis, is my hon. Friend surprised that the UK Government now seem willing to seek separate deals not for Scotland or Northern Ireland, but for the car industry in Sunderland and for the City of London?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I will come to that issue in a moment.
The Scottish National party’s compromise amendments propose a UK approach for all of “Team UK”, which is what the Prime Minister would like to think we are. I say the amendments are a compromise because that is exactly what they are. We fundamentally believe that the best future for Scotland and, indeed, the whole United Kingdom is to remain in the EU. But in the spirit of reaching a consensus—I object to Members who have suggested that we are not participating in the process—we have tabled 50 amendments, to which my colleagues and I will now speak. That is our involvement in the process. The First Minister of Scotland was clear that she was laying out a number of options. The ball is in the Prime Minister’s court.
Sir Hugo Swire
In retrospect, does the hon. Lady regret the SNP’s peddling of the myth during the Brexit campaign that Scotland alone could somehow remain in the EU without any of the sanctions in the Lisbon treaty—joining the single currency of the euro and so on? Does she regret proposing that to the Scottish people as a fact, rather than as fiction, which is what it was?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
The only myths in the independence referendum in Scotland were those peddled by the right hon. Gentleman’s friends in the Conservative party and those in the Labour party—that is where the myths came from. I am grateful to him for reminding the Committee, and indeed all those who are watching, that that is precisely the case.
The First Minister of Scotland has laid out a number of options, which are included in the paper my colleagues will refer to. However, I would remind hon. Members that, before the independence referendum, the Scottish Government produced a 670-page document called “Scotland’s Future”. We knew then, and we know now, that we can make a success of an independent Scotland. Hon. Members should compare and contrast that with page 65 of the so-called White Paper, where this Government are already talking about failure and
“passing legislation as necessary to mitigate the effects of failing to reach a deal.”
That does not instil much confidence in anybody.
Specifically on the amendments and new clauses, new clause 26—the teamwork clause—would, if accepted, mean that article 50 was not triggered until the Team UK approach was agreed by each individual member of the team. Is that not what the Prime Minister said? On that basis, I hope we will have support on both sides of the Committee for the new clause.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Could the hon. Lady clarify whether new clause 26 would effectively give the First Minister of Scotland, if she refused to agree, a veto over the exercise of article 50?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose interventions are always astute. I refer him to the wording of the new clause, which refers specifically to
“a UK wide approach to, and objectives for, the UK’s negotiations”.
Those are the Prime Minister’s words.
New clause 139 would require a substantive vote on this matter to be held in each of the devolved Parliaments prior to article 50 being invoked, further strengthening the democratic mandate for that action. New clause 144 sets out a mechanism to ensure that all devolved Administrations will have direct representation in negotiations on leaving the EU, enabling the negotiating team to have expert input from each constituent part of the UK. Given what we have seen so far, this Government are in need of some expert input. Following that, new clause 145 would set in legislation what we already understand to be possible and deliverable—the negotiation of a differentiated agreement for Scotland, so that it can retain its vital access to the single market by remaining part of the European economic area.
Amendment 46 further strengthens the role of the devolved Parliaments in this process, while amendment 55 would specifically ensure that the people of Northern Ireland are represented in this process by the newly elected Northern Ireland Executive following the upcoming election. Amendment 60 would ensure formal cross-border discussion of the Government’s proposal to maintain a frictionless land border with Ireland. Lastly, amendment 63 would give Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly and Welsh Assembly Members the same opportunity to hear the Prime Minister address them on Brexit as she afforded members of the US Congress who attended the Republican party awayday in Philadelphia last month. That is only fair.
We know from last week’s brief White Paper that the Government still believe there should be a special deal for Northern Ireland in our negotiations with the EU. A frictionless border between the UK and Ireland remains their priority. We also know that the UK car industry and the City of London, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) alluded, have also been singled out for special attention in the negotiations. It is becoming clearer with each passing day that the Government will be willing to pay through the nose to secure a special arrangement where that is in their political or economic interests.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I hope my hon. Friend will press all these provisions to a vote, because everyone here loves trooping through the Lobby and exercising their parliamentary sovereignty. However, does she agree that a differentiated deal for Scotland, with Scotland retaining its access to the single market, would benefit the rest of the United Kingdom? The Government are very keen to retain a land border with the EU on the island of Ireland, so why would they not want a land border on the actual island of Great Britain so that England could trade over that border into the single market in Scotland?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
As usual, my hon. Friend makes very salient comments, although I suspect they will fall on deaf ears, and we know what the result of that might well be.
The Scottish Government have been clear that they are willing to make fundamental compromises to ensure that we can agree a UK-wide approach. The Scottish Government’s White Paper, “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, sets out a series of options that could be taken, if this House so wished, to protect the precious Union that Members talk about so often—to protect Scotland’s political, social and economic interests in Europe while also remaining part of the United Kingdom. It is now time for this Whitehall Government to start to treat Scotland seriously and with respect. We know that such a differentiated deal is possible. Only yesterday, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who I am delighted to see in his place, said during a BBC interview—well, not much about anything in particular, but we did get this from it—that it is “not impossible” to have a differentiated deal for the constituent parts of the UK. The amendments tabled by the SNP set out a framework for us to work together in the interests of Scotland to deliver this.
We welcome the UK Government’s White Paper, which acknowledges the role of the Joint Ministerial Committee and states that it is in place to
“Seek to agree a UK approach to, and objectives for… negotiations”.
I refer the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), in relation to new clause 26, to those words of the Prime Minister. However, it simply was not acceptable for the Prime Minister to seem to dismiss the Scottish Government’s plan out of hand in her speech at Lancaster House before the JMC had even met to discuss it. The SNP does not believe that “involving” the devolved Administrations ends with the JMC. We want to see real, tangible efforts to develop a proposal acceptable to all the UK, not a toothless talking shop. That is why we have tabled an amendment calling for the devolved Administrations to have direct representation in the negotiations as we come to an agreed UK-wide deal.
Tomorrow the Scottish Parliament will vote on the triggering of article 50. The Prime Minister should respect that outcome. We also believe that the Prime Minister—
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
The hon. Gentleman has already made that intervention and was given an answer. Is it his position that the Scotland Act 2016 has no meaning—no value? Is it his position that notwithstanding the terms of the Scotland Act he is going to ignore the wishes of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved legislatures?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am not taking any more interventions. I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question.
We also believe that the Prime Minister should not trigger article 50 before the Northern Irish Assembly election on 2 March has taken place, and that there must be a meeting of the British-Irish Council to discuss urgently the immediate effect of the UK’s exit from the EU on the Irish border. That is because such a deal is not just possible but absolutely essential to Scotland, in a number of ways. It is essential for Scottish business. The British Chambers of Commerce’s “International Trade Survey” is further evidence of the damaging impact that the threat of a Tory hard Brexit is already having on Scottish and UK businesses. [Interruption.] It is not rubbish, as the hon. Gentleman says, unless he wants to rubbish the results of that survey, and with it the British Chambers of Commerce. I suspect not, hence he is still in a sedentary position. Published today, it reveals that of the 1,500 businesses surveyed, nearly half, or 44%, said that the devaluation of sterling since the EU referendum was having a negative impact on domestic sales margins, while over two thirds, or 68%, expect the fall in the pound to increase their cost base in the coming year, with more than half of companies—54%—expecting to have to increase the prices of their products as a result.
Such a deal is also essential for Scottish exports.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech, but clearly if the pound devalues, that is very good for exporters, including exporters in Scotland. There are two sides to that coin.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his recognition of a passionate speech, although I wish he would pay more attention to the words that I am using while I am delivering it. Is it the Tory Government’s policy to continue with a devalued pound? Is that their vision for the economy of the United Kingdom? That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am not going to give way just now, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind.
In relation to Scottish exports, new figures published by the think-tank Centre for Cities last weekend show just how vital the EU single market is for Scotland’s four largest cities. Exports to the EU from Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh and Glasgow alone total nearly £7 billion. The report also stated that 61% of Aberdeen’s exports go to the EU, which shows the importance of that export market to Scotland. It is also essential to maintain Scotland’s skilled workforce.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am not going to give way just now; allow me a few minutes to make some progress.
This morning, Holyrood’s cross-party Europe Committee published its latest report on Brexit, in which it recommended a bespoke Scottish immigration system—almost on cue; I believe, from memory, that that was something propagated by someone on the Government Benches during the campaign. We now know that those who campaigned to leave the EU, like those who campaigned against Scottish independence, were prepared to say anything to win the day and leave the rest of us to pick up the consequences. The findings of the report were based on extensive evidence heard by the Committee, which detailed the demographic crisis that Scotland would face without its EU citizens.
Ian Paisley
I have been listening very carefully to the points that the hon. Lady made with regard to Northern Ireland. If I heard her right, she indicated that until a new Northern Ireland Executive is established, the Government should not trigger article 50. Northern Ireland is at a difficult crossroads at the present time. If no Executive is ultimately established after 3 March, does she seriously believe that the whole United Kingdom should be held to ransom until that conundrum is resolved?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, which I understand. However, I would also ask: why is the whole United Kingdom being held to ransom by the Prime Minister’s selection of some random date, with no view to the consequences for the whole of the country? We are required to work to that date, but it came about on a whim.
A deal such as I have described is essential for the fishing industry. I mention the fishing industry because for too long it has been ignored by this Government, who have not stood up for it in Europe. The White Paper seems to confirm the worst fears of our fishermen, who now believe that without a specific Scottish deal, their interests will be negotiated away once again, as they have been before.
It is clear that a differentiated deal for the constituent parts of the UK is optimal, deliverable and essential to protecting our interests. Now is the time for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to keep her promises to Scotland—as she said, a “UK approach” for all of “Team UK”. Be under no illusions; my colleagues and I were elected by our constituents to stand up for Scotland, and that is exactly what we will do. One way or another, Scotland’s interests will be protected.
The amendments and new clauses that we have tabled would strengthen the UK’s future negotiating position with the EU and provide a framework to serve the best interests of its constituent parts. Our proposals crystallise in legislative specifics the grand platitudes that the Prime Minister and others have spouted about Scotland’s place in the UK and our role in the process.
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady referred earlier to the impact of the pound being devalued. Could she tell us which currency an independent Scotland would have? Would it be the pound, the euro or some other currency of her invention, or of the invention of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)? [Interruption.]
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
As my colleagues are saying from a sedentary position, the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in expert opinion anyway. Perhaps he will agree—his mention of another independence referendum speaks to this fact—that the question that was posed to the people of Scotland in 2014 was about a United Kingdom different from the one that exists now. Of course, it is in the gift of the Government and Members from across the House to agree to our proposals. They offer a compromise position, if the right hon. Gentleman does not want another independence referendum. But if we do have one, the arguments will be put forward to the people of Scotland for them to make that decision. The proposals give the Government an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is when it comes to respecting Scotland and the devolution process.
Quite simply, the UK is either a country that respects all its constituent parts or it is not—the question is as simple as that—and this Government need to decide today one way or another. We are waiting for our answer and, indeed, we are ready to respond, but if the UK Government decide to turn their back on the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, voters in Scotland will be left under no illusion about how this Government intend to deal with Scottish interests in future negotiations. If the Scottish people can no longer trust the UK Government to act in their interests, it will be for the people of Scotland to decide the best way to rectify this unsatisfactory situation of an increasingly disunited kingdom.
John Redwood
I support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I thought he took the Committee patiently through a number of important amendments tabled by Opposition parties, and he explained why some of them are needless because the Government are perfectly well intentioned in relation to the other parts of the United Kingdom and wish to consult very widely, and how some of them would be positively damaging because they are designed as wrecking amendments to impede, delay or even prevent the implementation of the wishes of the people of the United Kingdom.
My disappointment about both the Labour and the Scottish National party amendments is that there is absolutely no mention of England in any of them. To have a happy Union—I am sure the Scottish nationalists can grasp this point—it is very important that the process and solution are fair to England as well as to Scotland. I of course understand why the Scottish nationalists, who want to break up the Union, would deliberately leave England out of their considerations of their model for consulting all parts of the United Kingdom. That is deliberate politics, as part of their cause to try to find another battering ram against the Union.
In the case of Labour, however, I find that extraordinarily insouciant and careless. The Labour party is now just an England and Wales party, with only one representative left in Scotland and none in Northern Ireland. Yet it seems to be ignoring the main source of its parliamentary power and authority because it does not say anything in its amendments that would give a special status to England alongside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and provide proper consultation throughout all parts of the UK. The Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman)—she spoke very eloquently, and in a very friendly way—did not mention the word “England”, and she had no suggestion about how England should be properly represented and England’s views properly taken into account in the process that is about to unfold.
Joanna Cherry
May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if he were minded to bring forward any amendments dealing with his concerns about England, we would give them serious consideration?
John Redwood
I have not done so, because I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean and Government Front Benchers that the Government will, of course, do a perfectly good job in consulting and making sure that all parts of the UK are represented, and I am quite sure that Ministers who represent English constituencies will want to guarantee that the view of England is properly considered.
John Redwood
If we take the referendum as a national, UK-wide referendum, we will of course take into account the views of everybody because we are following the mandate of the United Kingdom referendum, in which a very large number of English votes are rather important—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The conventions are absolutely clear: the right hon. Gentleman will give way as and when he wishes, and hon. Members seeking to intervene should not remain standing.
John Redwood
I am very grateful to you, Sir Roger. I was trying to deal with the previous intervention. As a courtesy to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I thought other Members should listen to my answer to her before I took another intervention. I am now happy to take another intervention.
Mark Durkan
The right hon. Gentleman has indicted the Labour party and the SNP for not, in this group of amendments, addressing questions in relation to England. Does he recognise that the grouping is headed, “Devolved administrations or legislatures”?
John Redwood
I am well aware of that, and I am well aware that we have different arrangements around the country, but it is still an injustice to England that under the model proposed by Opposition Members, the biggest part of the Union by far would not be consulted on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom. I quietly remind them that to have the happy Union that I want, that all Government Members want and that, I think, a lot of Labour Members want, when we change the arrangements and have special arrangements for some parts, we have to make sure that they are fair to England as well.
Ian Blackford
We must reflect on what we were told in 2014, and that is that we were asked to lead the Union. If we are to have respect for this place, which we do, this House has to respect that the people of Scotland have given a particular judgment. This is about the House reaching a compromise not with us as SNP MPs, but with the people of Scotland. I cannot see why the Government and Conservative Back Benchers see that as so difficult. Quite frankly, if they cannot reach that accommodation with the people of Scotland, the people of Scotland will make their own conclusion.
John Redwood
Some of the SNP Members do protest too much. I seem to remember that they actively fought two referendums in recent years and managed to lose both of them. For my part, I am very happy with the result of both referendums; I managed to find myself on the winning side in both cases. I believe in respecting the views of the Scottish people, who decided that they wished to remain part of the Union of the United Kingdom, and in respecting the views of voters in the United Kingdom, who said they did not wish to remain part of the European Union. That is a very clear set of messages.
This Union Parliament, in the interests of the special Scottish considerations, said that only Scottish voters would decide whether Scotland stayed in the Union or not. Although many of us had strong views and were pleased that they decided to stay, we deliberately decided that it was appropriate to let Scotland decide, because in a democracy, a country cannot be in a union that does not volunteer freely to belong to that union. The Scottish nationalists, by the same logic, must see that people like myself—the 52%—have exactly the same view on the European Union that they have on the Union of the United Kingdom. There has to be voluntary consent. When the point is reached where the majority of a country no longer wishes to belong to the European Union, it has to leave.
I would have been the first to have said, had the Scottish nationalists won the Scottish referendum, that I wanted the United Kingdom to make all due speed with a sensible solution so that Scotland could have her wishes. I think I would have wanted rather more independence for Scotland than the Scottish nationalists, because I think that if a country is going to be a properly independent—
Patrick Grady
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I keep hearing the right hon. Gentleman talking about the “Scottish nationalist party”. I do not know what party that is, but the Members on these Benches belong to the Scottish National party.
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
The hon. Gentleman will understand that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
John Redwood
I am delighted that another advert has been given for the Scottish National party. We understand the point that its Members are making: they are not happy with the result of either referendum. However, in a democracy, when we have trusted the Scottish people to decide whether they wish to leave our Union and we have trusted United Kingdom voters to decide whether they wish to leave the European Union, it is my view and the view of practically all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and many Labour MPs, that we need to respect both results.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The memory of the right hon. Gentleman serving as the governor-general of Wales is treasured because of his memorable attempt to sing the Welsh national anthem, but he did that job without the legitimacy of a single Welsh vote. Does he not recall that this House can now act as an English Parliament under the EVEL rules? However, that is a path to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
John Redwood
Yes, the United Kingdom, through this Parliament, has decided that there will be differential arrangements for different parts of the United Kingdom. To Scotland we have given a Parliament; to Wales and Northern Ireland we have given an Assembly; and to England we have given absolutely nothing. That, so far, is our constitutional settlement. We have accepted exactly what the SNP spokeswoman was seeking: special treatment for Scotland through a more powerful Parliament.
One of the disappointments about this debate on devolution is that the myriad amendments do not, as I understand them, deliver more devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament or to the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies, yet that opportunity will be there for the taking as we proceed with the process of leaving the European Union.
I despair at the pessimism of so many people about this very exciting process of recreating an independent, democratic country. The SNP should understand that an area such as agriculture, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) wrongly told us was fully devolved —of course, it is not fully devolved but almost completely centralised in Brussels, which makes all the crucial decisions and budgetary dispositions, which we then have to execute—
John Redwood
The hon. Gentleman says it is now, but we are still in the EU, and that is the position we are about to change. This gives us a huge opportunity to devolve that power from Brussels. Some of it might go to the Union Parliament, some to the Welsh Assembly and some to the Scottish Parliament. That is to be decided, but would it not be a good idea if the SNP joined in positively the discussion about the appropriate areas to take those powers?
Sir Hugo Swire
Does my right hon. Friend believe, like me, that the SNP will join in the discussion if, on exiting the EU, more money becomes available to spend in the UK? If more is spent in England, it will want a dividend for Scotland as well, through Barnett.
John Redwood
I suspect that that is exactly right. I look forward to the day when the SNP accepts the verdict of the Union and the wisdom of the majority of Union voters, and sees that there is more power in it for devolved Parliaments and Assemblies—and potentially more money, once we no longer have to send the net contributions—and that we have a great opportunity to develop the devolved version of Scotland that the Scottish people voted for, if not always the one that the SNP would like.
Ian Blackford
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore join me and my colleagues in demanding that powers that might come back to this Parliament, in respect of agriculture and fisheries, be handed over to Scotland and that we get the money that should be coming to us? As part of that process, why do the UK Government not start by handing over the convergence uplift money from the EU that is supposed to come to Scottish farmers and crofters but which the UK has kept its filthy hands on?
John Redwood
It is not my job as an English MP to make that case, but I am glad that at last the SNP is making the case for an opportunity that would present, were it to allow us to get on with Brexit and create exactly that opportunity of more money for Scottish farmers.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement that the SNP is not welcoming back control over things such as fishing, or at least the possibility of getting it, but would prefer to leave it in Brussels? It would prefer to leave fisheries policy in Brussels, rather than grabbing the opportunity coming our way to sort out our own fishing resources.
John Redwood
Fishing is a prime example of a deeply damaging policy pursued over 45 years during our term in the EU. It has done a lot of damage to the Scottish industry, as well as to the English industry. Is there not a case for common cause here, to work on a Union-wide fishing policy, with appropriate devolution, so that we might all be better off and protect our fisheries better, ensure that more of the fish taken is landed and sold, ensure proper conservation, ensure a bigger Scottish, English and British component in the catch taken, and ensure proper and sensible national limits on our waters, which we have not been allowed to have in the EU?
Alex Salmond
The right hon. Gentleman will remember the famous civil service memo when Britain was negotiating entry into the Common Market that said that in the light of Britain’s wider European interests, “they”—the Scottish fishermen—were “expendable”. If that was the attitude on the way in, why will it not be the attitude of the British Government on the way out?
John Redwood
Because the British people have advised the British Government to be much more sensible on the way out than they were on the way in. As someone who opposed the way in and voted against it as a young man at the time, I am certainly not to blame for the enormous damage visited on the Scottish industry, which the right hon. Gentleman and his party have acquiesced in over many years by always saying that we should stay in the EU, which delivered that very bad policy for Scottish fisherman. I found, going around the country and making the case for our fishing industry, that this was an extremely potent issue, inland as well as in our coastal ports. It was a great sadness to me that so many stalwart defenders of the EU were prepared to sacrifice the Scottish and the British fishing industry.
Michael Gove
I speak as the son and grandson of fish merchants, and I should point out that it was the Scottish nationalist party—[Interruption]—that wanted to keep us in the EU and to maintain the common fisheries policy, which has destroyed jobs and industries, and which is why 54% of people in the parliamentary constituency of Banff and Buchan voted to leave. [Interruption.]
John Redwood
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making a powerful point and for making the Committee even noisier than I was able to make it by my modest remarks.
My final point—I am conscious of the time and I have taken a lot of interventions—is that a big confusion about single markets underlies the SNP amendments. We have this strange contradiction in their logic whereby staying in the single market of the European Union is crucial to the health of the Scottish economy, whereas leaving the single market with England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be fine as part of the process of independence. Far more of Scotland’s business, of course, is done with the single market of the United Kingdom than is done with the single market of the EU. Some SNP Members try to justify it by saying, “Well, of course we would be allowed to stay fully in the single market with the rest of the UK, so we would want to do exactly the same thing with the EU.” That would be a matter for discussion and negotiation, if there were to be a second referendum and if SNP Members were ever to get to the point where they could win one—two things that look extremely unlikely today.
SNP Members need to look very carefully at their contradictory position. My view in both cases is that what matters is access to the market, not membership of the market, because membership comes with budget contributions, acceptance of law making, acceptance of court powers and all the rest of it, which is true of our single market in the UK just as it is of the single market as designed in the EU. Successful independent trading countries just need very good access to markets, which is what can be got under most favoured nation rules under the WTO and probably even better access through the negotiation of a special free trade agreement. It should be much easier to negotiate a free trade agreement where there is already one de facto, because it is not necessary to remove tariffs that are difficult to remove. They have already been removed; we are just trying to protect them.
I thus urge the Scottish nationalists to think again about this issue and to understand that we are all on the same side: we want maximum access for Scottish whisky as well as for English beef or whatever the product. There is every possibility that we can achieve a good deal, and we are much more likely to achieve it without the amendments tabled by SNP Members, and with a concerted view from this place that we are going to get on with implementing the wishes of the United Kingdom voters. Their message to us is, “Just do it.” That should be the message from this week’s debate in this Chamber.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 109, tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall also speak to amendment 86 and new clause 150, tabled in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell), for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for South Down (Ms Ritchie). I will be brief, because I want to allow Members from Scotland, Wales and, of course, Northern Ireland to speak on these matters.
Before I come on to my substantive point about my new clause, I want to say that as a Member of Parliament representing an English constituency, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) gets a chance to speak to her new clause 168. In Merseyside and Greater Manchester, directly elected Mayors will be in place by the end of this May. My constituents in St Helens North, people in Greater Manchester, in the Liverpool city region and indeed people across the north-west of England will expect their views and those of their elected representatives to be taken into account as part of this process.
The Good Friday agreement is, for me, at the heart of progress made in Northern Ireland and with respect to relations between Britain and Ireland. The progress made over the last number of decades has been forged by and through our common membership of the European Union. In speaking to my new clause, I am of course cognisant of the fact that this debate is taking place in the context of the implications of the referendum held last May. I voted in this Parliament to hold a referendum; I took part in that campaign; and I lost. Those who argued for a remain vote lost. I respect that fact, and I voted accordingly last week. I want to be constructive about working with the Government to get the best possible Brexit that we can for my constituents and for the United Kingdom.
However, I am also cognisant of the need for respect to be shown to a different referendum, the one that took place in Northern Ireland in 1998 on support for the Good Friday agreement. On the same day, there was another referendum which resulted in Ireland’s withdrawal of its territorial claim over Northern Ireland. That goes to the heart of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends in the Social Democratic and Labour party. So the people of Northern Ireland, through a referendum, endorsed the Good Friday agreement. Subsequent agreements have been made between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Ireland, supported by the efforts of my hon. Friends in all the Northern Ireland parties—and I call them my hon. Friends deliberately.
Ian Paisley
May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question about new clause 109? He is asking Her Majesty’s Government to commit themselves to the principles that are enshrined in the various agreements, but given that he accepts that they have committed themselves to all those principles—as, indeed, have Her Majesty’s Opposition—why is the new clause necessary?
Conor McGinn
I think it important to bear in mind the uncertainty that has been caused by the vote to leave the European Union, and the fact that the drafting and signing of the Good Friday agreement, and all the architecture surrounding it, were in the context of both the United Kingdom and Ireland being members of the European Union. Let me also say gently to my hon. Friend that people in Northern Ireland, like people in Scotland, voted to remain in the European Union. The vote that I cast in the House on article 50 was based on the vote in the United Kingdom as a whole, but I think that that is worth bearing in mind as well.
I hope that the Government will commit themselves to ensuring that some of the provisions of the Good Friday agreement will remain in place when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, and to upholding them in both letter and spirit. The first, which is the most practical and obvious, is the free movement of people, goods and services on the island of Ireland. Trade and tourism have increased. People in the United Kingdom, in Ireland and, indeed, in the world as a whole do not lead their lives, or inhabit their communities, on the basis of boundaries. I see very little difference between crossing the boundary between my local authority in St Helens and the local authority in Knowsley and crossing the border between Derry and Letterkenny, or between Newry and Dundalk.
My second point concerns citizenship rights, specifically in relation to Northern Ireland, although my new clause 108, which was included in the previous group, refers to the status, rights and privileges of the Irish community in Great Britain. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain, I would welcome an assurance from the Government. Migration from Ireland was taking place before we simultaneously joined the European Union. Although Irish citizens will still be EU citizens after the UK leaves the EU, it would be good to know that the rights, status and entitlements that they have enjoyed through legislation and through custom and practice over the last century—and for many centuries—will be maintained.
This is also about the rights of people who were born in Northern Ireland to choose to be Irish or British, or to choose to be both. I choose to exercise both those rights; some people choose to exercise, exclusively, one of them; but I think it important for those who wish to be Irish citizens, and will be EU citizens, who reside in and were born in Northern Ireland to be very much in the Government’s thoughts as they negotiate our withdrawal.
The third point is about the preservation of institutions relating to strands 2 and 3 of the Good Friday agreement, namely the North South Ministerial Council and the north-south bodies. The north-south bodies deal with, for instance, food safety, trade and business, inland waterways, the Ulster Scots and the Irish language. One would imagine that when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, the Special EU Programmes Body, which was set up to distribute European Union funds, will cease to exist. It was set up under strand 2 of the Good Friday agreement, which was passed by a referendum, and which is enshrined in legislation passed by the House of Commons.
In the context of strand 3, I think it crucially important for east-west relations between the United Kingdom and Ireland to continue. There is a new dynamic following devolution and the creation of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish and Welsh Governments, who play a role in the British-Irish Council and in forums such as the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. It is absolutely critical that this engagement continues. Taking on board the point of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), these engagements are taking place in the context of our joint European union, which has made all of this just so much easier. That is an indisputable fact.
One area that concerns me greatly in terms of the UK leaving the EU is the Good Friday agreement’s provisions on human rights and equality, given the Government mood music around the European convention on human rights. That is of course separate from and outside membership of the EU, but it is worrying that the Government have intimated that they would seek to roll back or reverse some of the commitments given on human rights in terms of both Northern Ireland in relation to this new clause and people across the UK as a whole.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be very appropriate if the Minister tonight confirmed that the Government are not going to leave the European convention on human rights and the Council of Europe, because there are strong feelings on both sides of the House about that and about leaving our place in the world somewhat exposed? It is important that the Minister gives an undertaking on that tonight.
Conor McGinn
I agree entirely and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the valuable and important work she does in representing this place on the Council of Europe; we are very lucky to have her in that position.
On the principle of consent, having previously alluded to the Irish Government withdrawing their territorial claim, there is now no dispute—the Good Friday agreement makes this clear—by any parties in the Northern Ireland Executive or any parties in this House about the fact that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until such time as the majority of people there decide otherwise. That is what is enshrined in the principle of consent, but it is for people in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland as a whole to exercise that. My slight concern is that Northern Ireland leaving the European Union is a constitutional change that has been done without the consent of people in Northern Ireland, because they voted to remain. That again unsettles what has been a very delicate political balance that both Labour and Conservative Governments have sought to protect.
The new clause tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle, for South Down and for Belfast South goes to the heart of this as well. There is no provision for a part of a country that leaves the EU to re-join the EU. We must be explicitly clear on that, in respecting the principle of consent. If the wishes of people in Northern Ireland change and they wish to join a united Ireland, provision should be made for them to immediately become members of the EU, having expressed their wish to join the rest of the island of Ireland in a union.
Finally, it is very important to maintain the status of the Irish language. It is a full EU recognised language, and particular reference is made to it in the Good Friday agreement in terms of its being a regional and minority language.
I have tried to be constructive in my amendment, and I hope that what I have said tonight is constructive. I have huge respect for hon. and right hon. Friends from Northern Ireland. I understand that on this we will have different views, but in doing so I seek to protect the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, which I believe has given me and many others like me opportunities that we would not otherwise have had.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) for his considered and well-made speech; it was a pleasure to listen to it. I know that time is of the essence and I will therefore speak briefly to Plaid Cymru’s amendments in this group; they are new clauses 158, 159, 160 and 162 and amendment 90. With your permission, Sir Roger, we hope to press new clause 158 to a vote.
The Bill as it stands will be the biggest job-killing Act in Welsh economic history. It may be short, but it is loaded—loaded with a Brexit that pays no regard to the promises made during the Vote Leave campaign. This is not a Bill that ratifies the referendum result; it is a Bill that endorses the UK Government’s Brexit plan. We do not accept that the Prime Minister’s extreme Brexit is what drove people to vote leave. They were swayed by a torrent of false promises, and new clause 158 is designed to hold the Brexiteers’ feet to the fire. It would allow for proper scrutiny of the Government’s plans to uphold their pledge of continued levels of funding for Wales before triggering article 50.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman represents a rural constituency, as do I. Would he like to remind the House of the promises that were made to our rural communities, especially bearing in mind the fact that 90% of our exports go to the single market?
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman has made a point that I shall make later in my speech. We were promised absolutely no detriment; that pledge was made to the people of Wales.
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly support new clause 158. It is a shame that my new clause 157 was not selected; it had a similar intent. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, despite repeated questions to the Government, they have refused to guarantee that Wales will not be left a penny worse off as a result of leaving the European Union?
Jonathan Edwards
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for his new clause, which we would have been delighted to support. That is exactly the point that I shall be making during my contribution on new clause 158.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Further to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) has just made, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have failed to guarantee EU funding post-2020, which is what was promised in the referendum?
Jonathan Edwards
That is a pertinent point, and I am happy that colleagues will support us in the Lobby if we get the opportunity to vote on my new clause later.
The UK Government’s White Paper, which was published only last Thursday, was a complete whitewash in relation to those pledges. Unsurprisingly, it made no commitment to uphold the funding pledges, which were no doubt very persuasive in Wales during the referendum. Let us remember that the estimated net benefit—I emphasise “net benefit”—to Wales from the EU in 2014 was around £245 million, or £79 per head. We will not accept a penny less from the UK Government, because that was the specific pledge by the leave campaign in our country. Not one single penny less.
Just over a week before the vote, amid huge publicity, the leader of the Conservatives in Wales said that
“funding for each and every part of the UK, including Wales, would be safe if we vote to leave.”
That statement was made following an open letter written by Tory Front Benchers, some of whom have now been promoted to the Cabinet and hold Brexit portfolios. They made the same promise.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I, too, will be supporting the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 158 in the Lobby this evening if a vote is called. I would also have supported new clause 157. He is making an important point. Does he agree that the Joint Ministerial Committee would be a vehicle for the Welsh First Minister, on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, to make that case and hold the Government to account?
Jonathan Edwards
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and I will be supporting the new clause tabled by the Labour Front Bench if it is pushed to a vote. He is completely right. At the moment, UK Government Ministers might as well go into those Joint Ministerial Committee meetings with their iPods on and their headphones in. They are not going to listen to a word that the Welsh or Scottish Governments say, or to the representatives from Northern Ireland. There is no leverage to what is discussed in those JMC meetings. We need to firm up those processes.
The extreme Brexit favoured by the UK Government takes no account of the geographical economic divergence that exists within the British state. The Welsh economy is heavily driven by exports, and two thirds of our goods go to Europe. To willingly block those vital economic arteries would be an act of calamitous self-harm, given that 200,000 jobs in Wales are sustained by our trade with Europe. As someone whose job it is to represent the interests of my constituents and compatriots, I have a responsibility to do all I can to mitigate this Bill’s intentions.
That brings me to new clause 159, which would require the Government to explore a differentiated deal for Wales within the European economic area. The unprecedented task that lies ahead for the UK will inevitably require flexibility and, indeed, imagination. We have made it clear on a number of occasions that if the UK Government give us the assurance that Wales will keep its membership of the single market and the customs union, we will support the Bill. The Government have already conceded, rightly, that flexibility will be required to avoid a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The joint Welsh Government-Plaid Cymru White Paper makes the case for the continuation of full participation—that is, membership—for Wales in the single market and the customs union.
Paul Flynn
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the extraordinary attitude taken by the Government and the Prime Minister today on the status of the United Kingdom is entirely false? The United Kingdom does not exist as far as agriculture is concerned. The powers are exercised by the Welsh Government and the EU. If this goes through, it will be an attempt by the Government to take back powers that have already been devolved to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Gentleman is correct, as always, and I will come to that point later in my speech when I talk about shared competence and some of the constitutional reforms that will have to be made following Brexit.
In a similar manner, concessions have reportedly been made in certain sectors of the economy. We have already heard about Nissan in Sunderland and, as we would expect, the City of London. New clause 159 calls on the Government to show Wales a similar level of consideration by committing to consult on a territorial exemption when the Prime Minister drags the UK out of the single market.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Last week, I asked about guarantees about tariffs, specifically that there be no tariffs on Ford engines built in my constituency and exported out of Wales. I was told that there was no guarantee but that there was a commitment. Is a commitment good enough for Wales? Is it good enough for the United Kingdom given that we are now £1.8 trillion in debt—a national debt that is growing by more than £5,000 a second?
Jonathan Edwards
The hon. Lady is right to mention the fears about Ford because it is a major employer. I pay tribute to her for having the courage of her convictions when she voted against the Labour Whip last week.
Vote Leave campaigned on a platform of sovereignty, claiming that it wanted decisions made as closely to the people as possible. New clause 160 would allow precisely that by requiring the National Assembly for Wales to endorse any final agreement on the terms of exiting the European Union, thereby ensuring that Wales is fully involved in the process and that its needs are met. The Supreme Court ruling, which concluded that the Sewel convention holds no legal weight, confirms our long-held suspicion that devolution, and the principles it champions, is built on sand. Indeed, the UK Government went out of their way in their submission to the Court to emphasise the supremacy of this Westminster Parliament over the devolved Parliaments. Within the UK, it seems as though some Parliaments are more equal than others. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruling is why new clause 160 is necessary. If the British state is a partnership of equals, this is an opportunity for the UK Government to prove it.
The Prime Minister obviously recognises her political duty to consult the devolved Administrations—if only to save her own reputation. After all, she does not want to go down in history for breaking up two unions. Without the leverage of a vote on the final terms, Wales’ input holds no weight. The Brexiteers are ploughing ahead with the hardest of brutal Brexits. The Prime Minister’s “plan” speech on 17 January came before Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government had an opportunity to submit their White Paper for consideration.
New clause 162 and amendment 90 deal with repatriated powers and the constitutional future of the British state. On the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, powers will be repatriated to the UK, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and a determination will need to be made about powers in devolved areas. At the moment, there is little experience within the British state of shared competence. Serious thought and consideration must be given to the future of the UK’s constitutional structures. If not, we are in danger of constitutional turmoil.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that the problem with some speeches from Government Members is that they simply do not get that this is not a unity constitutional state anymore? We have separate Administrations, for example. How will the UK’s internal single market work? Have the Government given any thought to such matters? I do not think they have. Does he agree?
Jonathan Edwards
I completely agree. That is why new clause 162 is important in that wider debate. Government Members are riding roughshod over the views of Members of Parliament representing Wales and Scotland and setting a dangerous precedent.
Charlie Elphicke
In all the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, he skates over the fact that it was a referendum of the United Kingdom. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. What is more, the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union. He ought to respect the people of Wales, who made that decision as much as did the people of the United Kingdom.
Jonathan Edwards
I am not questioning the referendum result. I am trying to work out what happens next in the interests of all the people I represent in Carmarthenshire and the people of my country, Wales.
Powers repatriated that straddle both devolved and reserved subject areas must be dealt with effectively, and the National Assembly must retain its autonomy. By “taking back control” the Prime Minister must not mean rolling back on devolution. New clause 162 would provide an avenue for that by committing the UK Government to conduct a review of the UK’s constitution.
Tommy Sheppard
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the likely rejection of his amendment by Government Members, along with their put-down of every attempt to get some meaningful consultation with Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, belies a deep arrogance? They actually think that this process means that British Ministers can override Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on matters that pertain to those countries.
Jonathan Edwards
I agree exactly with the hon. Gentleman, but I would go further. My great fear is that Brexit will be used by the UK Government and by the Conservative party to derail and undermine devolution in its entirety.
In a similar manner to new clause 162, amendment 90 seeks clarity on laws repatriated from the EU.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree that what we need more than anything else at this moment is mutual respect of the devolution settlements and that we should do our best to achieve consensus wherever possible?
Jonathan Edwards
I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman. The amendments tabled by the SNP, Plaid Cymru and Labour endeavour to achieve that, and it is a source of great regret tonight that they have been taken so badly by Government Members.
I do not usually make a habit of quoting the leader of the Conservatives in Wales, but in this instance he has made another fitting statement, and I will hold his party to account on it. He said in an LBC interview last month:
“No, this won’t be the last Wales Bill…. Brexit will require devolution changes to realign those responsibilities.”
There we have it. A devolution settlement meant to last a generation, and which received Royal Assent only last week, is already redundant.
I finish by reiterating that on 23 June nobody voted to lose their job or to become poorer. My colleagues and I will be doing everything possible to avoid that and to ensure that the interests of the people of Wales are protected.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I have listened to the debate with interest, but I had not intended to contribute, so I will be brief because other Members want to speak.
I say to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), the ex-leader of the SNP, that 17.4 million people voted to leave. The majority of the amendments that we are faced with this evening are wholly vexatious and are intended to frustrate the will of the people. What aspect of these three simple English words do the SNP not understand: “You lost twice”?
Alex Salmond
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) just predicted exactly what the right hon. Gentleman was about to say, because apparently he said it a day or so ago. Does he remember the result of the general election in Scotland? Fifty-six out of 59 seats. Does he remember the result of the Scottish election? Nicola Sturgeon was resoundingly returned as First Minister of Scotland.
Mr Paterson
I like having a helpful intervention, which gives me another chance to remind the Committee that 17.4 million people across the UK voted for this result. The one thing that would be bad this evening is if we were to accept any of these amendments, because that would lead to uncertainty. What we need is clarity. After the vote last week, businesses, investors and those in jobs across the land need clarity and certainty, so I suggest that the SNP gets back to the day job. Look at the primary schools where literacy rates are declining. Look at the universities where the number of people from less well-off backgrounds is declining. Look at the great hospitals that are not performing. Look at the mess the SNP made of its police reforms. Go back and work on the day job.
Another narrative is creeping into this evening’s debates. It concerns Northern Ireland and is rather more serious than the pantomime of the SNP. I refer to some comments that have been made about the potential threat to the peace process, and I wish to put another point of view. The people who should be given the most credit are the incredibly brave professional people in our security forces who, under the most extraordinary provocation and in difficult circumstances, held the line and held the peace, which allowed the peace process to take place. I also pay tribute to all those in all parties in Northern Ireland who worked on the peace process; to the two leading parties in the UK, the Conservative party and the Labour party, which took a bipartisan approach; to the two main parties in the Dáil, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil; and to the two main parties in Washington, the Democrats and the Republicans. That extraordinary unity of purpose, over many years, has brought Northern Ireland to the better place it is in.
When I was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I went to Northern Ireland every week for three years, and when I was Secretary of State I went every week for two years. In five years, I do not recall having a single meeting with any EU official; I do not recall any visit to Brussels on any issue. Obviously, the two years I spent at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were a complete contrast, as about 90% of what DEFRA does is implement EU law. So I wish to correct the idea about what would happen should the UK bring back powers and the money to this place. Obviously, there were significant EU funds, so we will have shedloads of money coming back, which we will continue to spend.
I wish to put on the record again the fact that in five years neither I, nor my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), my stalwart Minister of State, can remember a single meeting with an EU official. That just puts into perspective the importance of the EU. I recall having the German ambassador to a successful dinner at Hillsborough where we talked about investors, but I honestly cannot recall a meeting with the EU. I did come in after the settlement had gone through and perhaps Labour Members who were involved remember interventions, but for me the key players in this were the UK security forces, the two main parties here, the two main parties in Dublin and the two main parties in Washington.
Ian Murray
The right hon. Gentleman used the term “shedloads”. Will he tell the House how much “shedloads” is? Is it more or less than the £350 million for the NHS that was plastered on that now infamous bus?
Mr Paterson
The latest figure I saw was about £10 billion, so significant funds from the EU pass through the UK Government and those funds could be either spent at the same level or increased should we wish to do so. I therefore do not see that the money side will destabilise the peace process. We have heard talk that the process is unhelpful for Northern Ireland, but it has moved on to a completely different position. The main thing to concentrate on in Northern Ireland is getting the economy moving, and that is where the real efforts should be. It is also worth thinking about the position of the Republic—
Ms Ritchie
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand or accept that direct negotiations would have taken place between EU officials, and the Northern Ireland Executive and the Ministers therein, rather than the Secretary of State or his deputy, because those EU matters were devolved matters?
Mr Paterson
Yes, I am perfectly happy to accept that. That was in the negotiation before I arrived. I worked closely with the former Member for St Helens South when he was Secretary of State and I was his shadow. As shadow, I spent a lot of time going to Dublin, talking to both parties, and to Washington, and that continued when I became Secretary of State. The point I am making is that in the time I have been around, the EU has not played a key negotiating role. Money has been going in that we can easily replicate and the peace process has moved on. I want to correct the narrative that the EU played a key role in the whole process.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of the changes and things that must happen in future will have to come from the EU? We need article 50 to go through quickly so we can get on with it, but we need the EU to start looking after Ireland and fighting its corner so that we can all work together to find the best solution.
Mr Paterson
I am not sure that the words “looking after Ireland” will be that welcome in a proud independent state, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He has taken the point I made: uncertainty is not good for Northern Ireland, and I shall happily vote against all the amendments, because they would lead to uncertainty. If EU funds have been provided, we can pick them up. The key players are the two main parties in this House, the two main parties in the Dáil, and the two main parties in Washington. Those are the real guarantors of the peace process. With that, I look forward to voting against the amendments.
Mark Durkan
The real guarantors of the peace process were the people of Ireland when they voted by referendum in May 1998 to choose and underpin the agreement. Neither of the two main parties in this House had a vote in that referendum, and nor did the two parties in Washington, so let us be clear on who the real guarantors are. In the context of a debate in which we are told we have to go by the imperative of the referendum that took place on 23 June last year, let people recognise that there is still an imperative that goes back to the joint referendum—that articulated act of self-determination by the Irish people, who chose to underpin and agree to the Good Friday agreement.
The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) says he does not want uncertainty, but as far as the Good Friday agreement is concerned, the uncertainty is being created by Brexit. Neither he nor anyone else in this House should be surprised when they start to hear that the negotiations that take place after the Assembly elections will not just deal with the questions of scandal, the lack of accountability and transparency, and the smugness and arrogance displayed by the parties in government, but will go to the core of the implications for the agreement as a result of Brexit.
The fact is that although the Good Friday agreement has been wrongly dismissed by others, the EU is mentioned in it. It is there in strands 1 and 2—one of the most expansive references is in relation to the competence of the North South Ministerial Council; it is there in strand 3; and, of course, it is there in the key preamble of the agreement between the Government of the UK and the Government of Ireland, which refers to their common membership of the EU. As John Hume always predicted, that provided both the model and the context for our peace process.
It is no accident that when John Hume, who drove so much of the principles and method into the Good Friday agreement, was awarded the Nobel peace prize—well, just look at that speech and how many references there were to the signal role of Europe and the special contribution it had made and would make, and to the role that the experience of common membership of the EU would play. That is why he said:
“I want to see Ireland—North and South—the wounds of violence healed, play its rightful role in a Europe that will, for all Irish people, be a shared bond of patriotism and new endeavour.”
When he enunciated those words in 1998, he was not talking about a new concept. We can look across the Chamber and see the plaque commemorating Tom Kettle, a former Member of this House who gave his life in the first world war. Before that war, he said that his programme for Ireland consisted in equal parts of home rule and the 10 commandments. He said:
“My only counsel to Ireland is, that to become deeply Irish, she must become European.”
Before he gave his life in the war, he said:
“Used with the wisdom that is sewn in tears and blood, this tragedy of Europe may be and must be the prologue to the two reconciliations of which all statesmen have dreamed, the reconciliation of Protestant Ulster with Ireland, and the reconciliation of Ireland with Great Britain.”
That reconciliation was best achieved and best expressed when we had the Good Friday agreement, which was so overwhelmingly endorsed in this House and in the referendum of the Irish people, north and south of the border. We know that some people did not endorse it, and that some have held back their endorsement and refused to recognise that referendum result. Some of them are the same people who are telling us now that we have to abide by the referendum result in respect of Brexit and that we have to ignore the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland in respect of remaining in the EU. It is the same as when they said that we had to ignore the wishes of the people in Northern Ireland in respect of the Good Friday agreement.
No one should be under any misapprehension that there are implications for the Good Friday agreement. When we hear this lip service that we get from the Government, the rest of us are meant to lip synch along with it and talk about frictionless borders and the common travel area. All those things about the border experience and the common travel area predate the agreement itself, so if we address those issues and those concerns, we must understand that the terms in which they are addressed are not reliable and that they are not relevant to protecting some of the aspects of the agreement itself, which is why the amendments in this group that we have tabled are so important.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has already referred to new clause 150, which appears on page 74 of the amendment paper. We have also tabled a key amendment, amendment 86, to which the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) referred when he addressed new clause 109. There are also amendments 88 and 92, which deal with questions around the competence of the devolved Assembly, and the need for consent in respect of any changes to the competence of that Assembly or of devolved Ministers. Those amendments are not about the question of the Assembly giving consent to the triggering of article 50, so it is not about the same question that went to the Supreme Court—but it is about issues and principles that were addressed and are expressed in the judgment of the Supreme Court that too many people have sought to ignore.
As a supposed co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement, the UK Government are meant to have a duty to protect and develop that agreement. Indeed, various Ministers have told us that they have no intention of allowing Brexit to undermine the agreement. If that is so, there should be no difficulty in having that commitment in the Bill. Politically, we all have to conclude from the Supreme Court judgment that no matter what principles have been agreed or established, none of us can have recourse to their legal adherence without their explicit inclusion in legislation and/or a treaty. We therefore have a duty to be vigilant against any legislative terms that could be used to relegate the crucial importance of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and/or the Belfast agreement more widely.
Those sponsoring and supporting this Bill do so arguing the need to respect the outcome of the referendum on 23 June. We make no apologies for highlighting the primacy that has to be accorded to the overwhelming endorsement in our referendum, when, on 22 May 1998, nearly 72% of people in Northern Ireland and 96% in the south of Ireland voted in favour of the Good Friday agreement.
Sir Hugo Swire
The hon. Gentleman is talking about some extraordinarily challenging and difficult issues, which could have very serious implications in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that it is our duty—all of us who want to see Northern Ireland prosper and go forward—to recognise the fact that the UK is exiting the EU and that we have to make the most of it. Will he commit to the House that he will not make divisions over Brexit part of the SDLP campaign during the Northern Ireland elections?
Mark Durkan
The right hon. Gentleman has some neck to ask the Social Democratic and Labour party not to make divisions over Brexit an issue in the election. The wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, which were clearly expressed in the referendum last year, are being ignored. Are we now also to tell the people, “Ignore your own wishes”? The right hon. Gentleman obviously expects a party like the SDLP, which honourably fought a campaign to remain, to say, “Ignore your wishes. Set them aside. You have to be slaves to the impulses of a vote in England in response to some crazy argument.”
Clause 1(2) denies any regard whatever to protecting the constitutional, institutional or rights provisions of the Good Friday agreement or their due reflection in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which is why we tabled amendment 86. Clause 1(2) seeks to ensure that the Bill is not restricted by any other legislation whatever. Amendment 86 would create an exception for the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Crucially, it would uphold the collateral principles in the other part of the Good Friday agreement, which is between the Governments of the UK and Ireland, and is not fully reflected in the 1998 Act. The amendment would also exempt section 2 of the Ireland Act 1949 from the override power in the Bill or its outworkings. I admit that the amendment would act as a boundary to the powers provided to the Prime Minister by clause 1(1) and would galvanise the protection for the agreement but, given that the Prime Minister is trying to tell us that she would observe those boundaries, why should she fear that being on the face of the Bill?
New clause 150 draws on key language from the Good Friday agreement, as I made clear to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean. It is intended to ensure that any future UK-EU treaty—we are told that the Government want to negotiate a new UK-EU treaty—will make explicit reference to upholding the fundamental constitutional precept of the Good Friday agreement, which is the principle of consent that affords a democratic route to a united Ireland if that ever becomes the wish of a majority of people in Northern Ireland. In the case of any such future referendum, no uncertainty whatever must hang over Northern Ireland’s direct admission to the EU as a consequence of a vote for a united Ireland. Nor, indeed, must there be any uncertainty over Ireland’s terms of membership of the European Union.
Such uncertainty was deployed during the Scottish independence referendum, when people said, “Don’t make assumptions about Scotland having an automatic place in the EU or that the process will be easy. Article 49 will make it very difficult.” The difference for Northern Ireland is that it does not have the choice of becoming a new state. Under the Good Friday agreement, its only choice is membership of the United Kingdom or membership of a united Ireland. That agreement was made at a time when both countries had common membership of the EU. Any future referendum will not take place in that situation. Lots of people can place question marks over whether Northern Ireland would have straightforward entry to the EU in that context. Under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, that could constitute an external impediment to the exercise of that choice or even to the choice of having a referendum.
The Taoiseach identified this issue at the MacGill Summer School last year. It will be an issue for the Irish Government, as one of the 27 member states, when they negotiate their side of the treaty. It would be an odd position for the Irish Government as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement to want this to be reflected in a new UK-EU treaty. This is not just an issue for the British Government as a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement; it should be something that they are equally and comfortably committed to.
Let us remember that the key precept of the principle of consent and the democratic choice for a united Ireland, as reflected in a referendum in 1998, was the key point that turned it for those people who had locked themselves on to the nonsense idea that they supported violence sourced from a mandate from the 1918 election. That was the key for quite a number of people to say, “Physical force has no more place in the course of Irish politics.” Physical force is now parked because the Irish people as a whole have, in this generation, by articulated self-determination, upheld this agreement, and that gives them the right, by further articulated self-determination, to achieve unity in the future. Anything that diminishes or qualifies or damages that key precept will damage the agreement. People need to know the difference between a stud wall and a supporting wall: just knocking something through because it is convenient and gives a bit more space might be grand and might do, but if at some future point, when other pressures arise, things start coming down around us, people should not complain. We have to be diligent and vigilant on these matters.
Sir Hugo Swire
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that before there are any new bodies or any more reviews, the priority for the people of Northern Ireland should be to get a working Assembly and re-elect a working Executive to get on with running Northern Ireland, so that all these things can then be dealt with? Without that, there will be no more devolution of anything it seems.
Mark Durkan
Yes, and my party and I are fully pledged to doing that. Nobody worked harder to create the principles and the precepts of the agreement and to get those institutions established and up and running—and we did so, I have to tell the right hon. Member for North Shropshire, with very good assistance from the EU. As someone who was a Minister in Northern Ireland—both a Finance Minister and a Deputy First Minister—I had many negotiations with many people in the EU, including Michel Barnier, who was very constructive and helpful in relation to a number of funding issues. Yes, he had his particularisms about which one had to be careful and understand where he was coming from, and certainly his officials had to understand where he was coming from, but it was a useful and constructive contribution—one of many—from the EU.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if article 50 is triggered we will no longer have InterTradeIreland, Waterways Ireland, Tourism Ireland, and the six bodies that were set up by the Belfast agreement? I do not see any threat to them from triggering article 50.
Mark Durkan
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that it was his party that said, “If we are going to go ahead and agree these implementation bodies, the cover has to be that the way in which we can show that they meet our test of mutual benefit is that they deal with matters that largely transpose EU business and involve questions of common compliance.” There is the Food Standards Agency, and Waterways Ireland and the Loughs Agency have some environmental compliance issues—and of course there is also the question of EU funding. As the hon. Member for St Helens North said, the role of the Special EU Programmes Body is not going to exist if no common EU funding is to be available any more.
If the rationale and justification for the existing bodies is wounded and weakened, those of us who negotiated and supported the agreement have the right to say, “We’ve already had nearly 20 years of this limited area of implementation co-operation. It now needs to be developed and expanded as the agreement promised it could be.” If the existing bodies are wounded and winged by the fact of Brexit, and if they limp along and struggle for relevance, clearly there must be—in the context of a review at least of strand 2, if not the wider agreement—negotiations on new bodies. Those negotiations, as we know, will not find themselves unlinked to other issues and factors as well. Some hon. Members have hummed to themselves that Brexit has no implications for the Good Friday agreement, and that as long as they say that they will consult Ministers and that they do not want border posts, no other damage has been done. They do not understand the politics that went into the agreement, and they do not understand the politics that will upset the workings of that agreement because of the implications of Brexit.
That is why if people have a care for the Good Friday agreement, they should have no problem with amendment 86. If people vote against amendment 86 on Wednesday, they will be voting against the idea that we can have the Good Friday agreement at the same time as pursuing Brexit.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I have no power to impose time limits on Committee stage debates. A lot of Members wish to speak. Back-Bench contributions to this debate will have to end at 11.45 pm to allow the Front Benchers any time at all to wind up. It is patently obvious that not all Members are going to get in. I urge extreme brevity, please.
Charlie Elphicke
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to follow the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). Whenever he speaks, he gives us an interesting perspective on how politics is going in Northern Ireland. It seems to me that Sinn Féin might be doing slightly well at the moment.
We are talking about a matter that is important not just for Northern Ireland but for the whole United Kingdom, and I particularly want to address new clause 4. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) set out cogently the lack of consensus in respect of the devolved Administrations. The drafters and presenters of the new clause know very well that consensus is almost impossible to achieve, as the shadow Minister admitted.
Less focus has been given to subsection (1). The new clause would operate after article 50 has been triggered. The risk is that having triggered article 50, negotiated with the European Union and thought that we had a deal, the machinery might prevent us from closing that deal. The new clause might have the unintended consequence of making any deal hard to achieve, because it contains a whole mechanism for having two months before signing any agreements and needing to seek to achieve consensus before entering any agreements.
The best way forward is to have a clean Brexit with a clean Bill that simply puts article 50 through and lets the Government get on with it. The Government have already said that they are going to involve the House in what is happening and in the negotiations. It is a United Kingdom reserved matter and a United Kingdom decision, and it would be wrong, as a matter of principle, for this important negotiation and decision to be hamstrung by the risk that consensus could not be achieved.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
We have already spoken about the validity of the devolved Administrations in issues relating to the European Union. Does the hon. Gentleman not respect the existence of the devolved Administrations, elected as they were by referendum? Does he not recognise that new clause 4 is a very moderate clause, and that consensus should be sought? Why are the Government seeking to oppose it?
Charlie Elphicke
Of course I respect the devolved Administrations. I respect the constituent nations of this country, I respect my constituents and I respect the fact that the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union. It is important that referendums that take place in this nation are respected. That goes for the Scottish nationalist party as well, which disrespects every single referendum.
Charlie Elphicke
I say to the hon. Gentleman before I give way to him that he should calm himself. He jumps up and down with such vigour that he will do himself harm.
Ian Blackford
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that 62% of people in Scotland voted to remain in Europe? If he respects the nation and the people of Scotland, why do the Government that he supports not compromise with the Scottish people and the Scottish Government and allow us to achieve what we voted for, which is to remain in the single market?
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman should know that the biggest single market that Scotland is part of is the United Kingdom; that is its biggest single market. [Interruption.] Some Members are telling me to answer the question, so let us look at the record of the Scottish nationalists when it comes to referendums. In No. 1, the alternative vote referendum, they backed a yes vote and they lost. They will not respect that. In No. 2, they backed an independence referendum—they lost. They will not respect that either. In No. 3, they fought on the United Kingdom-wide referendum we have just had—it covered the United Kingdom that the people of Scotland voted to remain a part of—and they will not respect its outcome. Now, they are blustering that they will have another independence referendum, even though over half the people of Scotland say they do not want one, and although they know they will lose it by the same margin as they lost it last time.
Alex Salmond
May I tell the hon. Gentleman that I think his memory is faulty on the AV referendum? It was on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections in 2011—understandably, we were concentrating on them—when the SNP won an overall majority under a proportional system.
Charlie Elphicke
The right hon. Gentleman likes to talk about the elections to the Scottish Parliament, but we are discussing the referendums of this country.
Michael Gove
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Immediately preceding the intervention by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), his neighbour the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) sought to intervene, but he moved to tell her to sit down so that he might intervene instead. Is such sexist behaviour in order in this Committee?
The Temporary Chair (Sir Roger Gale)
Happily, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.
Charlie Elphicke
I want to conclude my remarks by saying that it is high time the Labour party respected the fact that the people of Wales and the people of England voted to leave the European Union, it is high time that the Scottish National party respected a referendum—it has, despite the interesting explanation given by its former leader, disrespected three referendums—and it is high time that we have a clean Brexit with a clean Bill and that we send the Bill to the House of Lords unamended.
Seema Malhotra
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this important debate about how we can engage more with the devolved Administrations and legislatures in relation to our future discussions and negotiations.
I want to speak to my new clause 168, which calls on the Government to establish a new national convention to advise Her Majesty’s Government on their priorities during negotiations with the EU on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It calls on Ministers of the Crown to take into account the views of the national convention before signing any agreements with the European Commission on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. I propose that the national convention should convene representatives from across different levels of government, the regions—including, in case anybody has missed this, all the English regions—and various sectors to meet and produce a report recommending negotiating priorities that would better reflect the needs of the regions of the UK.
Dame Rosie Winterton
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State for Brexit said there would be some kind of meeting in York, where the Government would bring together representatives of the regions. That was some time ago, and since then we have heard nothing about it. That would fit in completely with her idea of a national convention, so it would be helpful if the Minister put some flesh on the bones of what the Secretary of State was talking about.
Seema Malhotra
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, the lack of engagement with the regions has been highlighted in the work of the Exiting the European Union Committee.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State actually said that he would get
“the mayors of the north to come and have a meeting in York”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 802.]
That was a very vague statement. My concern is that it does not seem to provide any clarity about how the Government are going to engage with regions that will not have elected Mayors by May, such as the north-east. Indeed, such Mayors will be elected only in May, which will be far too late for these negotiations.
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It comes down to how much the Government are really committed to and interested in hearing from differing voices across the country as we move forward. That is why I want the convention to include elected Mayors, representatives of civil society and local government, and MEPs—they have great expertise and experience—as well as representatives of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Seema Malhotra
I will make some progress first.
The national convention would include a wider set of voices, each with an important contribution to make to the debate, including universities and higher education representatives, business organisations, trade unions, trade bodies and other representatives of different sectors.
The referendum demonstrated the alienation that many people feel from politics as a whole. The result showed a nation split down the middle. Seven out of 10 18 to 24-year-olds voted remain, while two thirds of over-65s voted leave. Cities tended to vote remain, while small towns and rural areas tended to vote leave. England and Wales voted leave, while Scotland and Northern Ireland voted remain.
Anna Soubry
The hon. Lady says that Members of the European Parliament would sit in the national convention. Does that include Mr Nigel Farage?
Seema Malhotra
We need to have a way in which the expertise of our many long-standing Members of the European Parliament can be shared with the nation. I am not saying that I would have one or the other. What is important is that there is a continuing dialogue and that we engage the nations and the regions across the country in a far more diverse debate than we are currently having.
Seema Malhotra
I will make some progress, because we have only a few moments left and other Members wish to speak.
Yesterday in my constituency, I held a roundtable with people who voted leave and those who voted remain, from people in their 20s to those in their 80s. It was a useful discussion that engaged people in the choices and dilemmas ahead. They said why they voted leave or remain. Their reasons included the commitment of £350 million for the NHS, housing and immigration, particularly opening up immigration from non-EU countries, including Commonwealth countries. Many felt that they did not understand the implications of Brexit, nor what the risks might be.
Seema Malhotra
I am afraid that we are running short of time.
People wanted more information and more debate. One person even asked me what article 50 was. The level of understanding is very low and it is vital that we continue to engage people. People had a vote in a referendum, but going forward there is no forum for people to understand and engage in the journey we are on.
The national convention that I propose would fill an important gap. It would give English cities and regions a voice alongside Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in a strong national conversation about where we go next. It would recognise and harness the expertise of our councillors and the vast experience and expertise of many other sectors and, yes, our MEPs.
Brexit will have different effects on different communities, sectors, regions and nations. The needs of farmers in Cornwall will be different from those of the nuclear industry in Cumbria, the media and tech sectors in Manchester, the financial services in Scotland and London, and car manufacturing in the north-east. Those differences should be shared and those needs should be understood in a public forum. In evidence to the Exiting the European Union Committee, on which I sit, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union admitted that not enough had yet been done on regional engagement.
Many of us were deeply disappointed with the quality of the referendum debate. The setting up of the national convention would inform and shape a mature national debate during the negotiation period and help to unite the country. New clause 168 is an opportunity and a test for the Government. If they are serious about a Brexit that works for everyone, they should welcome this opportunity to take the discussion out of Whitehall and engage the country.
Sammy Wilson
Can the hon. Lady clear something up for me? She is proposing a national assembly, the purpose of which is to advise Her Majesty’s Government on their priorities, and its report would not be received, according to proposed subsection (7), for 15 months. Is she saying that we wait 15 months—in which case she wants simply to delay—or is she saying that the report would come after the negotiations are over?
Seema Malhotra
Perhaps I can clear this up. The maximum time is to encourage engagement over the period of the negotiations, assuming that they last for two years. This is a process to engage the regions and nations far more effectively in a national conversation. If there is one thing that this debate and the referendum outcome have taught us, it is that people want to be listened to.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to speak in support of amendment 46, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, but before that I would like to take the opportunity to thank Conservative Members who have spoken this evening for their quite extraordinary display of hubris and contempt towards amendments, laid by several different parties, that simply seek to make sure that the reality of the modern British constitution and devolved settlement is respected. Those of us who believe that Scotland would be better off managing its own affairs as an independent member of the EU will have received a huge boost this evening from their behaviour. It was a pleasure to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). I am sure he will forgive me if I say that I suspect that the cause of a united Ireland has also received a boost this evening. I very much hope so.
I will be brief so that others from my party might have a chance to speak. The purpose of amendment 46 is to require the Prime Minister to obtain the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly before she triggers article 50. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to correct the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) and his woeful misunderstanding of what the Supreme Court did and did not say in relation to legislative consent motions. It said that, as currently framed in the Scotland Act, they are not legally enforceable. It did not say that they had no meaning whatsoever. The hon. Member for Foyle quoted paragraph 151 of the judgment, and I very much suggest that Conservative Members read the judgment, rather than simply taking from it what they want. It said:
“The Sewel Convention has an important role in facilitating harmonious relationships between the UK parliament and the devolved legislatures. But the policing of its scope and the manner of its operation does not lie within the constitutional remit of the judiciary”.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I ask the hon. and learned Lady to take her seat. I have been very kind in bringing in the SNP, and I ask that she not take advantage of the time—[Interruption.] Order. I wanted to share the time, so I hope that she is coming to an end, so that we can get one more speaker in, as I promised I would do by allowing her to speak.
Joanna Cherry
The purpose of the amendment is to require the Government to do what they said they would do when they introduced the Scotland Act, which was to make the Scottish Parliament the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, and give it a say in a process that will fundamentally affect the rights of Scottish citizens and Scottish business. [Interruption.] I noted that Government Members were given as much time as they wanted to make their points, and I intend to take as much time, as is my right, to make my points.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think that the hon. and learned Lady’s speech has come to an end. Let us now please hear from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Thank you, Mr Hoyle. [Interruption.]
The Chairman
Mr Salmond, you should know better. [Interruption.] Order. One second.
Alex Salmond
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. It is clear that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) had not resumed her seat, Sir. Being in the Chair accords you many privileges, but you cannot reinterpret the wishes of an hon. Member who is on her feet.
The Chairman
As the occupant of the Chair, I have the right to make decisions in this Committee. [Interruption.] Just a moment. I rightly wanted to bring in the hon. and learned Lady, which I did. When the SNP Whip comes and asks me to give a couple of minutes to ensure that the SNP has another voice, which I did, I certainly do not expect advantages to be taken of the Chair on the agreement that I met. That is the issue. Sit down.
The Chairman
Order. Calm down, Mr Wishart. This is a very serious matter. It is so serious that I want to hear what the Minister has to say in response to the debate. It is very serious and I want to hear it.
Alex Salmond
Other Members have been making their contributions without any admonition from the Chair.
The Chairman
Order. Tempers are running quite high. We need to calm it down. In fairness, I have been very generous in coming into the Chair—[Interruption.] Mr Wishart, we do not need any extra help for the moment. Let me say that I want to hear, and Mr Salmond would expect to hear, what the Minister has to say in response to the opening speeches. I believe Mr Salmond would have wanted answers. The fact is that this Committee wants to hear what the Minister has to say. The last thing I wanted to do was to take up time dealing with points of order. In the end, if we do that, we will not hear from the Minister. I understand that you, Mr Salmond, may have used some unparliamentary language to me, but I am sure that you are not that kind of person and I am sure you did not do so.
The Chairman
I am saying that I am sure that was not the case. I did not accuse you; far from it. Let us now get the Minister on his feet.
Mr Walker
Thank you, Mr Hoyle.
We have heard from all four corners of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Everyone who has spoken in the debate agrees on the importance of engaging closely with the devolved Administrations and legislatures as we embark on the forthcoming negotiations.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. I have to say that I have great respect for you as the Chairman, but I hope you can understand the frustration that we all feel that only two SNP Members have been called to speak in this debate, which is important for the future of Scotland and our position within Europe. I am asking what you can do, Mr Hoyle, to make sure that the voice of the people of Scotland is heard correctly in this debate. It has not been heard this evening.
The Chairman
I assumed my place in the Chair, and I have tried to ensure that a second SNP voice was heard, and we were listening to that. That is what I agreed to, and that is what I have done. In fairness, I think the SNP has done better than it was going to otherwise, in which case, let us hear what the Minister has to say.
Mr Walker
Engaging with the devolved Administrations and discussing their priorities is exactly what the Joint Ministerial Council on EU Negotiations was set up for. It brings together the constituent parts of the United Kingdom to discuss each Government’s requirement for the future relationship with the EU, and to seek a UK approach to and objectives for article 50 negotiations.
I recognise the spirit in which the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) presented her new clause, and I recognise her and her party’s dedication to the Union. However, the JMC is not a legislative or statutory body, and it would not be appropriate to change that in the way new clause 4 proposes. I say that not only for the reasons given by my right hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), but because it provides a neutral forum for confidential discussions, which this new clause would undermine.
When it comes to the new clauses and amendments, we take very seriously our responsibility to ensure that we get the best deal for every part of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, England—as well as for the UK as a whole.
Ian Murray
I am delighted that the Minister has been able to give way. I wonder whether he and other Ministers will take it on board that Members who tabled amendments in all good faith have not even been able to speak to them because of the programme motion tabled by the Government. The Government have been forced kicking and screaming by the Supreme Court to the Chamber to present the Bill. It is about time that they thought again, and gave us more time for debate
Mr Walker
The House voted for a programme Order, and that programme Order has been followed by the Chair.
We have not yet made final decisions about the format for direct negotiations with the European Union. That is a matter for the Prime Minister, representing the interests of the whole United Kingdom. Moreover, it is important to recognise that there are two sides to the negotiation, and we cannot say for certain how our side will progress until we know how the EU side will approach it. In the context of amendments 46, 55 and 88 and new clause 140, it is important to note that Supreme Court ruled—I quote from the summary—
“Relations with the EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to UK Government and parliament, not to the devolved institutions.”
The summary went on to state:
“The devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU”.
While that provides welcome legal clarity, it in no way diminishes our commitment to working closely with the people and the devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as we move towards our withdrawal from the European Union.
I have made it clear that the Government will negotiate on the right approach for the whole United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who made a passionate speech, and to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan). They made important points about the significance of the Belfast agreement and its successors. I must emphasise to them that the position of the UK Government remains unchanged. Our absolute commitment to those matters is reflected in our White Paper, which mentions the Ireland Act 1949, as well as a commitment to the common travel area and our bilateral relations with the Republic of Ireland. While I accept all the points that the hon. Member for St Helens North made so well about the importance of respecting those agreements, I can assure him that the Government respect them, and I do not think that his new clauses are necessary.
We have heard a range of suggestions from Members on both sides of the House about how to engage the devolved Administrations and, indeed, every part of our United Kingdom. The Government will continue to do that through the JMC process, which is firmly established and which functions on the basis of agreement between the UK Government and the devolved Assemblies. We have also heard suggestions for huge constitutional reforms which are beyond the scope of the Bill. New clause 168 proposes that the Government establish a national convention on exiting the European Union. Amendment 91 requires a duty to consult representatives at every level of government, regions and the sectors.
I have already spoken about the role of the JMC, and Ministers throughout the Government are organising hundreds of meetings, visits and events involving businesses in more than 50 sectors across the United Kingdom. They are consulting a number of representatives, including the Mayor of London, who is mentioned in some of the amendments. New clause 168 would get in the way of those established processes, and the idea of a national convention would cause unacceptable delay to a timetable that the House has clearly supported.
We are committed to engaging closely with the devolved Administrations and all parts of the country to secure a deal that is in the best interests of the whole United Kingdom. However, as the Supreme Court ruled, relations with the EU are not a devolved matter, and no part of the UK is entitled to a veto. I urge Members not to press their new clauses and amendments, so that the Bill can make progress in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Jenny Chapman
The Minister opened his remarks by saying that the JMC was not on a statutory footing. That is precisely the point of our new clause. He has given us warm words and platitudes about his respect for the devolved Administrations, but I am afraid they are not enough, and we will press the new clause to a Division.
Ian Murray
Given that we have not reached the moment of interruption, Mr Hoyle, may I move new clauses 23 and 24 and amendment 8, which stand in my name?
The Chairman
Unfortunately not.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Business without Debate
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
High Speed 2: Yorkshire
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I am grateful, even at this late—or should I say early—hour, to discuss the very important decisions to be made about HS2 and its route through Yorkshire, and particularly South Yorkshire. What this debate loses by the hour at which it occurs, it gains from the quality of the Members who are present.
Edward Miliband
On both sides of the House.
I am grateful to all my right hon. and hon. Friends who have supported the debate, and particularly to my right hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and indeed all my hon. Friends.
I want to make it clear right at the outset that I have always supported the principle of HS2, and I still do. But the whole reason for it must be to seek to do something about the deep inequalities our country faces, and my colleagues and I fear that that will not be the outcome of the decisions currently being advocated. We have called this debate because HS2, having supported the Sheffield Meadowhall route year after year, has changed its mind and is now recommending what is called the M18 route through my constituency, with a spur to Sheffield Midland. In my remarks, I want to take on the issue of whether that makes sense. I do not believe it does make sense in terms of maximising the economic benefits of HS2 or tackling the deep inequalities in our country, connectivity and value for money. I hope the Minister, and indeed the Secretary of State, will be as fair minded as we have been in listening to the arguments that have been made.
There are five arguments that HS2 is making. The first is around what it calls the conflicting demands of the region. In considering this issue, it is worth remembering why Meadowhall was originally chosen—it was because of its excellent connections to the rest of the region, with a journey time to London of 68 minutes and five trains an hour. This is what Sir David Higgins himself said in October 2014 about the alternative option, which he now recommends. HS2 examined
“a spur terminating at Sheffield Midland station. While this provided limited benefits for the city centre market, it did not provide the connections and journey times necessary to serve the wider Sheffield city region effectively, particularly Rotherham and Barnsley.”
I could not have put it better myself. He went on to say that this approach would not deliver
“an equitable approach across the North or meet the vision of a truly high speed network for the country.”
So HS2 is currently recommending an approach it describes as worse for equity, connectivity, capacity and journey times.
Given all that, Members might think that the M18 option was better for Sheffield city centre. My colleagues from Sheffield will obviously take their own view on that, but I contend that that is not the case. Why do I say that? The so-called city centre option that is now being recommended actually means slower journey times from London to Sheffield city centre than the previous Meadowhall option. The House should not take my word for it; it should listen to HS2’s own figures.
According to HS2, the old Meadowhall route meant a journey time into Sheffield Midland from London of 79 minutes, even with a change of trains. The time on the new route is somewhere between 85 and 87 minutes, and could actually be longer. Not only that, but there would have been five trains an hour—now there will be a maximum of two. The trains will be half the length of HS2 trains, and they will not be on the HS2 track; they will be on what HS2 euphemistically calls “classic” track—I think that means the old track, which is subject to all the delays and problems that exist. I believe that Sheffield and South Yorkshire are being sold a pup on this route. That is true whether we look at the economic benefit or the passenger numbers; on all the issues that matter, the benefits of Sheffield Meadowhall are much greater than those of the Midland option.
The second argument HS2 makes is around city centre connectivity—the need to go from Leeds city centre to Sheffield city centre, for example. When I have asked HS2 about this, it has said, “Well, Transport for the North”—hon. Members will know about that organisation—“has really changed our thinking on this.” So last week I rang up the head of Transport for the North, David Brown, who was bemused, to say the least, to hear that he had driven this change. He told me that he certainly had not expressed a view about which option was better. He actually said that it was disingenuous to claim that he had driven this change. That is not surprising, because the old Meadowhall route meant a journey time from Leeds city centre into Sheffield city centre of 27 minutes, which is under the half an hour that is the ambition that Transport for the North has for this city centre connectivity.
There is an even more serious problem with the Sheffield Midland option that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has exposed with persistent questioning—whether there is the engineering capacity at Sheffield Midland to meet the ambitions of Transport for the North for up to 20 trains an hour. There are real doubts about this. I would like the Minister to tell us—because I have asked HS2 and it has not given a straight answer—what the engineering constraints are at Sheffield Midland. Currently two trains an hour are being proposed, and there is the potential for two more if other links are built.
The third argument that HS2 makes is about demand. This basically says that there is not the demand in South Yorkshire that justifies the five trains an hour that would have run to Meadowhall, so instead there will be up to two trains an hour, which could of course be one or two—and we have to remember that they are half the size of the old HS2 trains. I think that this is the same as the defeatism that the proponents of HS2 often accuse its critics of. In other words, it is saying, “This kind of economic intervention isn’t going to make a big difference so we are talking about one fifth of the capacity of the original Meadowhall proposal.” That is defeatist and wrong. It is downgrading South Yorkshire, and that is the wrong thing to do.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the capacity of Sheffield Midland station, particularly if we want to increase the number of trains to Manchester, for example. There is an additional problem that he might like to mention, which is that the electrification of the midland main line is not going to go ahead in the mainstream programme, and there is no money in anybody’s budget to fund this, as I understand it.
Edward Miliband
That is an incredibly important point. I will come on to the vexed question of costs, because that will obviously be a concern of the Minister, and I understand the reasons for that.
HS2’s fourth argument is about what it calls local constraints—that is, the urban industrial density and the environmental challenges of the Meadowhall route. However, HS2 itself admits in its most recent document that what it calls the constructability issues at Meadowhall can be overcome, and, as I have said, the engineering challenges of the city centre are completely unanswered.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the woefully inadequate evidence that HS2 gave to the Transport Committee when it was called to give evidence? It was questioned quite closely in its witness statements on this particular issue and did not give any semblance of a proper answer.
Edward Miliband
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I noticed the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) nodding from a sedentary position; I know that he raised this issue in the Transport Committee as well. It is also something that my constituents have raised with me.
The other thing I would say about the challenges and constraints is that we are not comparing like with like. We are comparing three or four years of work on the Meadowhall route with, frankly, back-of-a-fag packet calculations in relation to the M18 route. My constituents with houses that are going to need to be demolished have not had letters saying that their houses would need to be demolished. There is a whole range of issues. A whole new housing estate, the Shimmer estate in Mexborough in my constituency, is threatened with demolition. Some of the most distinctive countryside around villages in my constituency such as Hickleton, Barnburgh, Clayton and Hooton Pagnell is under threat. Our argument is not simply about the local effect—it is a wider argument about the benefits to South Yorkshire. However, I do think that that is relevant, and proper work has not been done on the constraints of this route.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
As somebody who has opposed HS2 right from the beginning, I have a great deal of sympathy with the case the right hon. Gentleman is making. Although I do not want to intervene on the merits of the M18 route or Meadowhall, does he agree that there is a serious problem with the governance of HS2 Ltd? It has had five Secretaries of State, four permanent secretaries and three chief executives. Now, even the former permanent secretary to the Treasury, Lord Macpherson, has said that HS2 is not good value for money for the taxpayer and the money could be better spent on other road and rail projects that would benefit Yorkshire and the rest of the country.
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Lady has a long track record of campaigning on this issue. Although she and I may differ on the principle around HS2—I support it—the point that she makes about its inconsistency of approach is deeply troubling. It was recommending the Meadowhall route not just in October 2014 but, as we discovered thanks to FOI, in late 2015 and as late as February 2016. I was going to call this debate—partly in order to attract more people to it—“The mystery of HS2 in Yorkshire”, because it is a mystery to me what changed. In February, HS2 was saying that Meadowhall was the right option. By April or May, the previous Secretary of State was walking around my constituency looking at the other route.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I spoke to David Higgins in July last year when this occurred, and he said that there was no consensus for Sheffield Meadowhall. It is quite clear to me the damage that the M18 route will do to three villages in my constituency. If M18 goes ahead, the sub-regional economy of South Yorkshire will lose out massively on the benefit and the jobs that HS2 said two years ago would result from Meadowhall going ahead. It is inconceivable, in my view, that that should not happen, and it has not been written off.
Edward Miliband
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that the Minister will be open-minded. Although the Secretary of State has said that he is minded to go ahead with the M18 route, he has kept the Meadowhall option open.
I come now to the issue of cost. HS2 has been careful to say that the claimed £1 billion of savings is not the motivation for the route change, but I totally understand why the Minister and the Secretary of State would care about the cost. Unfortunately, it turns out that the claimed savings are simply illusory. This £1 billion of so-called savings excludes a whole number of costs. It excludes the electrification of the northern loop to Leeds, which will cost £300 million and which is essential for any link to Leeds, because it is not built into the plan. It excludes the cost of a parkway station, which HS2 is suggesting could cost somewhere between £200 million and £300 million; that is not in the plan. It excludes any re-engineering of Sheffield Midland; that is not in the plan. It excludes potential electrification of the Sheffield line; that is not in the plan. It excludes the optimism bias that the National Audit Office called the Government out on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), in her role on the Public Accounts Committee, has been assiduous in looking at these issues. When we look at the so-called £1 billion of savings, we found that it disappeared. I ask the Minister to come back to me on that if he disagrees.
That is half the problem, but there is another half to the problem. The Government and HS2 have been talking about the capital costs of the project, but when we look at the fine print, we might wonder why they have not been talking about the operating costs. There is a very good reason why they have not done so. The operating costs of the M18 route—this comes from the Government’s own figures—are a staggering £1.7 billion higher than those of the Meadowhall route. Not only do the savings disappear, but the route turns out to be more expensive by £1 billion or more over the lifetime of the project. I hope that one thing that we can establish today is that the Minister and HS2 really should stop saying that the route saves money, because it does not. It does not save money when we look at the capital costs, and it certainly does not save money when we throw in the operating costs as well.
When I go through the arguments about the benefits to South Yorkshire and look at whether we believe this economic intervention will help South Yorkshire and do so properly—there are issues of connectivity, demand, local constraints and costs—I am afraid that I do not believe the M18 route adds up. Some people have said that the problems can be solved by having a parkway station on the M18 route—for example, in a village or town in the Dearne valley—but I do not believe that. An afterthought parkway station will provide a maximum of one or two trains an hour, not five. It would be likely to have all the same connection problems as the city centre option, and it raises the most profound infrastructure challenges.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
HS2 adversely affects my constituency, and I have always voted against it. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that HS2 is now so desperately over budget and so desperate to make savings that we have ended up with a railway that does not connect with HS1 or Heathrow, and goes from nearly London to nearly Birmingham? I am not surprised that it is not delivering what he expected for Doncaster.
Edward Miliband
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I understand that Governments will always want to look for savings, but I do not believe there will be any savings.
The final argument I want to address is consensus. The Minister and I have discussed the issue, and I know he is concerned about it. One explanation HS2 has offered is that there was no consensus for the Meadowhall route. That was true because Meadowhall was advocated by Doncaster, Barnsley and Rotherham, while Sheffield advocated the Victoria option. However, I really hope the Minister hears today that if there was no consensus for Meadowhall, there is far less support for the M18 route. I believe that this is now an idea without allies. It is not supported in Doncaster, Barnsley or Rotherham, and many people in Sheffield have growing doubts. Indeed, I think Sheffield has been sold a pup by HS2.
Last of all, I say to the Minister that the Secretary of State has said he is minded to adopt the M18 proposal, but has not closed the door on Meadowhall. Whatever the reasons for this bad recommendation, I want the Minister to listen to what he is hearing—the facts and the evidence—and not sell South Yorkshire down the river. I want HS2 to work for South Yorkshire, but the M18 route does not work. The answer, in my view, should be to return to the original Meadowhall route, by all means with better connections to the centre of Sheffield. If reason and rationality matter, the M18 route cannot go ahead; if making our country more equal matters, the M18 route should not go ahead; and if the views of the people of South Yorkshire matter, it cannot go ahead. I hope and trust that the Minister and his Secretary of State will listen and act when the time comes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) on securing this debate. I think HS2 is a very exciting project, and I am grateful to him for his overall support in principle, but we obviously have issues to resolve in South Yorkshire.
HS2 is long overdue for our national rail system. It will provide the capacity for our congested railways, improve connections between our biggest cities and regions, and generate the jobs, skills and economic growth that will help us to build an economy that works for all. A key part of that is closing the geographical, sector and skills gaps in our country, and not leaving people behind.
By providing new fast lines for inter-city services, HS2 will free up space on our existing railways for more services, including more regional services for commuters and more freight services. It will create better connections and more seats for passengers overall. Even people who never travel by train stand to benefit from fewer lorries on the roads, and from the thousands of local jobs and apprenticeships that will be created by HS2. It will create opportunities for skills and employment, and it will promote UK leadership and expertise in construction and engineering. We are looking at 2,000 new apprenticeships, 25,000 private sector jobs to build the railway and 3,000 jobs to operate it. Over 70% of the new jobs created directly by HS2 are outside London.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I think we all support the principle, but we want to talk about this particular route. From the perspective of Chesterfield, may I tell the Minister that we were actually quite pleased with the change, because it brings in the whole north Derbyshire area, and up to about 400,000 people? Whatever comes out of this, can we make sure that Chesterfield is served either by the route he is now proposing, or by the route to the east of Chesterfield?
Andrew Jones
The hon. Gentleman’s very interesting point highlights the dilemma we are facing in South Yorkshire and the surrounding area, but I think the benefits will be significant.
Let me get into the detail. I am still asked every day whether this scheme will happen. Of course it will happen. The Bill went through on its Third Reading in the House of Lords only last week, with the biggest majority in a Division since this Parliament voted to join the European Community, as it then was, almost 50 years ago. That is quite an interesting point to note. [Interruption.] I think it is very interesting. The point is that the scheme is going to happen. The question now is how we maximise the benefits when it arrives in our communities.
All sorts of problems will clearly arise from part of the proposed phase 2 route through South Yorkshire. I agree with the right hon. Member for Doncaster North that the concerns of residents in South Yorkshire are very important, just like the views of residents along the entire line of route. That is why HS2 has engaged closely and continues to engage with affected residents, including the people of Yorkshire, to understand and address their concerns.
The current phase 2b route refinement and property consultation is addressing the issues raised by residents directly, including the location of depots, where to build tunnels and viaducts, the height of infrastructure, and property impacts. The consultation exercise closes on 9 March, so this is a live, ongoing consultation and I can only talk about the proposals. A significant number of events are being held.
Sir Kevin Barron
I will be very brief. HS2 has said that there are nine areas where there could be a parkway station, but today I have heard that it could be two areas. Why is that not out for consultation as well?
Andrew Jones
HS2 is still working on the proposals. It will provide its recommendations to us when it has done the assessment in April and May of this year, so there is nothing yet to consult upon.
There are 30 information events along the line of route on the current proposals. This is a genuine consultation and we are listening. The right hon. Member for Donaster North asked whether we are listening and we are. The way in which changes have been made in response to previous consultations shows that the process is open and by no means finished.
In response to concerns raised by the local community in Crofton, HS2 Ltd has identified options for alternative locations for the proposed New Crofton depot, some of which the Secretary of State could consider in his response to the route refinement consultation.
The entire HS2 programme has benefited from close engagement with communities, businesses, local authorities and passengers. The engagement events have been extremely well attended, so we are listening. We are working closely with local authorities and stakeholders along the line of route to find the best solutions.
After listening to consultation responses and considering alternatives to the proposed viaduct in the Aire and Calder area, we changed the route to pass under Woodlesford in a tunnel. In Leeds, we moved the location of the HS2 station 500 metres to the north to create a major transport hub with a single concourse. Again, we are listening. The point is that people in Leeds came together to suggest a solution. It would be great if that were possible in the Sheffield city region, so that the region spoke with one voice to the Government and decided where the station should be.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
What needs to happen to get the Meadowhall option back on the table? That is on the Huddersfield-Penistone-Sheffield line that goes through my constituency, so it has the added benefit of connectivity to Huddersfield and the surrounding towns.
Andrew Jones
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point about connectivity and the services that would benefit his constituency.
Let me get into the points that have been made. We know that we have to get the decision on the M18 route refinement and the Meadowhall options right. This is more than a Government-led proposal; it requires collaboration from regional and local stakeholders.
The original 2013 consultation proposed serving South Yorkshire with a route along the Rother valley and an HS2 station at Meadowhall, about 6 km from Sheffield city centre. Since 2013, opinion among local people about the best location for the station has remained divided and no consensus has been reached. Indeed, it does not look like a consensus will be reached. That has made the decision about how HS2 can best serve the region very challenging, and the factors around the decision are finely balanced. In addition, there have been new developments since that time, including the northern powerhouse rail aspiration for fast and frequent services between city centres.
In the light of those developments and the feedback received in response to the 2013 consultation, HS2 Ltd continued to consider a range of options for how HS2 could best serve South Yorkshire while maintaining the integrity of the service to the larger markets of Leeds, York and Newcastle.
As part of the changes, Sir David Higgins recommended that a 9.4 km southern spur at Stonebroom be built off the HS2 main line, enabling HS2 trains to run directly into Sheffield city centre along the main network, and that the main north-south route follows a more easterly alignment over some 70 km between Derbyshire and west Yorkshire.
Andrew Jones
We are still working up the proposals for northern powerhouse rail, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We are looking at that all the time.
Building a northern connection would result in Sheffield being served by a loop rather than a spur, enabling services stopping at Sheffield Midland to continue on to destinations further north, and this connection could allow journeys between Sheffield and Leeds of 25 minutes —well within the northern powerhouse rail ambition of 30 minutes. The proposed M18 route has additional benefits, in that it affects fewer properties, generates less noise pollution than the Meadowhall alternative, is less congested, and avoids businesses and the risk from the mining legacy. I can see many attractions to a city centre location such as Leeds, Birmingham or Manchester.
On the parkway station recommendation, the Government have commissioned HS2 Ltd to conduct an options study that will review rail demand in the South Yorkshire region, and alternative options for meeting that demand, including the parkway station, as well as potential service extensions to places beyond Sheffield Midland, such as Meadowhall, Rotherham and Barnsley. That work is under way. We look forward to the results in the spring. Alongside the route refinement and property consultation, the study will be used to inform a decision on HS2 in South Yorkshire later this year.
I agree with everybody here that we want to secure the benefits of HS2 in South Yorkshire and right across our country. It will be a major challenge to get the scheme right for South Yorkshire, but already we can see some benefits, including funding to help with the development of a growth strategy. The region can start to benefit from HS2 even before it is built, through long-term plans for regeneration. Several contracts have been let, and further major contracts worth up to £11.8 billion for civil engineering work between London and Birmingham are expected to be let this year.
HS2 is going ahead. The programme is moving at pace. The question is how to minimise the disruption during the build and, most importantly, maximise the benefits when HS2 arrives. I want people to be thinking about that, including in South Yorkshire. I have met colleagues from South Yorkshire, and I will meet them again—I think that dates are already in the diary; I am happy to receive all representations. I think that we can take this debate as part of the consultation exercise, and I hope that we can achieve a consensus around the proposal in South Yorkshire.
Edward Miliband
Will the Minister answer a simple question: is Meadowhall still on the table?
Andrew Jones
Yes. We have not ruled options out, although the Government have said that they are minded—but only minded—to go ahead with the proposal from Sir David Higgins. HS2 Ltd has run the largest public consultation in British Government history. We have sought to listen to communities and to take on board their comments and concerns at every stage, and that will continue, but HS2 is not just about improving transport; it is about exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said—building a better Britain and creating a legacy of prosperity for future generations. That especially applies in Yorkshire, which stands to benefit enormously from the new line, which is why I, as a Yorkshire MP, am proud to be part of this fantastic scheme.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Judicial Pensions) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Courts and Justice (Sir Oliver Heald)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Draft Pension Schemes Act 2015 (Judicial Pensions) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2017.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
As the statutory instrument is relatively concise, I can be brief. The purpose of the draft regulations is to make provision to pave the way for the creation of a suitable pension scheme for eligible fee-paid judges, to mirror the pension scheme for salaried judges established by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. This is required following the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of O’Brien v. Ministry of Justice.
Following the decision in that case and subsequent decisions, it is now established law that a lack of pension and other specified benefits amounted to less favourable treatment of some fee-paid judicial office holders compared with salaried judges doing the same or broadly similar work, which is contrary to the part-time work directive. The Ministry of Justice made a commitment to implement a pension scheme for those fee-paid judges. That commitment was honoured for future service, subject to transitional protection, by the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015, but a new scheme is needed as the remedy in respect of reckonable fee-paid service from 7 April 2000—the date when the part-time work directive ought to have been transposed into UK law.
The power to create such a scheme was created by section 78 of the Pension Schemes Act 2015, which inserted a new section 18A into the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, but that provision alone is not enough to enable a suitable fee-paid scheme to be created. The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 enacted the Government’s policy on public service pensions, and as part of that reform section 30 placed certain restrictions on the content and operation of public service pensions, subject to an exception for pre-existing pension schemes; the salaried judges’ scheme was one such scheme. At the time of the 2013 Act, it was not anticipated that there would be a need to permit the making of a new but historical scheme, such as the one we are considering today. The draft regulations make such provision by amending section 30 of the 2013 Act so that it does not apply to the new fee-paid judicial pension scheme.
The draft regulations are an important and necessary step towards introducing the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, which will be established through separate regulations, subject to the outcome of the consultation and parliamentary approval.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instrument and confirm that we will not oppose the motion today.
Plainly the Government must follow the decision of the Supreme Court in O’Brien v. Ministry of Justice. The Court appears to have taken a dim view of the Government’s stance that it should be able to deny part-time judges a pension, but given that the appellant had previously not succeeded, it is difficult to criticise the Government for engaging in litigation. It therefore fell to the Government to construct a scheme for fee-paid judges. Initially that was expected to be launched by 31 March 2016, then by 1 December 2016, and then it was announced that it would be in place by April 2017. Perhaps the Minister can explain the long delay? A news item on the Ministry’s website dated 6 August stated:
“It has become clear that drafting the regulations is proving more complex than was originally anticipated. The main reason for the delay is due to the complexity of drafting the parts of the regulations which will deal with AVCs”—
additional voluntary contributions. It continues:
“These parts of the regulations are also required to address both retrospective and future added benefits.”
However, the draft regulations before us today contain two very short sections. Is the Minister satisfied that the complexity has been overcome?
The regulations facilitate then the establishment of the pension scheme. The Court found that the lack of pension and other benefits was less favourable treatment of some judicial office holders compared with their salaried counterparts doing the same or similar work, and the new scheme was required to have effect from 7 April 2000—the date on which the UK ought to have implemented the part-time work directive. Earlier this month in another case, the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor were found to have discriminated against younger judges by requiring them to leave the judicial pension scheme in April 2015 but not doing the same for older judges. Is that likely to add any further delay to implementing the fee-paid scheme? Does the Minister intend to appeal that decision? He is no doubt aware that the case will be watched keenly by other public sector workers who have been subjected to transitional arrangements.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her observations. It is true that we face some complexity: it is a bit like trying to do something that is exactly the mirror image of something else—ensuring that the provision is exactly the same. As she says, all the benefits within the scheme need to be covered. I can assure her, though, that the draft regulations are simply a paving measure, without which we cannot introduce the scheme we are preparing. Our aim is to set up a new but historical scheme and the draft regulations simply give us permission to do that. She is absolutely right: we need to get the detail right and we are working hard to do that.
The Government are considering whether to appeal the McCloud case, which the hon. Lady mentioned, but we remain committed to creating the fee-paid scheme, which would not be delayed by an appeal. I hope I have dealt with all the points the hon. Lady wished me to cover.
The draft regulations are an important legislative step to allow us to honour a commitment made following the Court decisions, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
(7 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, it may be helpful if I remind Members of the procedure in European Committees. The whole proceedings must conclude no later than two and a half hours after we start. I shall start by calling a member of the European Scrutiny Committee to make a brief statement about that Committee’s decision to refer these documents for debate. I shall then call the Minister to make a statement, which will be followed by questions for up to an hour, although I have discretion to extend that by up to half an hour, if there is an appetite. The Committee will then debate the Government’s motion, and I shall put the question on that motion when either the debate or the time available is exhausted, whichever comes first. There is an amendment, which we shall come to at the debate stage, after questions.
Does a member of the European Scrutiny Committee wish to make a brief explanatory statement about the decision to refer the documents to this Committee?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is my great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Having served with you on the Public Accounts Committee after 2001, I know how important parliamentary scrutiny and establishing costs and benefits are to you, and the European Scrutiny Committee shares that perspective.
The EU’s ambitious free trade agreement with Canada is due to be considered by the European Parliament only next week, on 15 February. It is therefore unfortunate that, despite the European Scrutiny Committee’s repeated requests since September last year for a debate on the Floor of the House, it has only been possible to schedule a debate today, some three and a half months after the Government agreed to the decisions authorising the EU to sign the provisional comprehensive economic and trade agreement, and that we are having that debate in Committee, rather than on the Floor of the House.
The Government’s agreement to those decisions constituted an override of parliamentary scrutiny. The European Scrutiny Committee summoned the Secretary of State to an emergency evidence session immediately afterwards to explain matters, and he gave various undertakings. However, the failure to schedule a debate on this significant trade deal in good time means that the House has lost an important opportunity to scrutinise and have a say on the Government’s position on the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, which has generated so much interest here and across Europe.
I will start with the broader Brexit implications that the European Scrutiny Committee considered. CETA is the EU’s most ambitious free trade agreement to date and will, among other things, lead to the elimination of almost all tariffs on most goods, open up trade in services and enable mutual recognition of professional qualifications. Much of the agreement will be provisionally applied, and the Government tell us that UK consumers and businesses will see immediate benefits. However, what will happen after we leave the EU? Do the Government have plans to ensure that we continue with CETA, or will we need a new deal after we leave?
The questions of competence that arise in respect of many EU agreements with third countries are particularly acute with CETA. The Commission originally wanted the EU to act alone in entering this agreement with Canada. It accepted that CETA should be a mixed agreement, entered into by both the EU and the member states in their own right, only following pressure from member states. The European Scrutiny Committee is concerned that there should be clear and transparent delineation of the extent to which the EU has exercised its competence in signing the agreement and the extent to which member states have exercised theirs. That question is important for three reasons: first, to support the Government’s policy that the EU should act only where it has exclusive competence; secondly, to counter the Commission’s clear wish to limit member states’ involvement in such agreements; and thirdly, to facilitate any exercise of disentanglement that Brexit requires.
This fraught issue will be affected by the outcome of litigation that will be considered later this year in the European Court of Justice on the Singapore free trade agreement. It is also relevant to determining the procedure for concluding future agreements, including between the post-Brexit UK and the EU.
The Committee has been concerned to identify precisely who can trigger and terminate provisional application of CETA. That is important, given the controversy that CETA has aroused, and the uncertainty as to whether it will ever be ratified. For reasons set out in the Committee’s report, that matter has not been satisfactorily resolved.
To move on to the prospective benefits of CETA, the Government have stated that it would bring about £1.3 billion of economic benefit to the UK. However, the Minister has not addressed our question—I hope he will—about which sectors might be expected to incur losses. Given the concerns expressed in the UK and other countries about the vulnerability of certain sectors, it is important that the Government should demonstrate transparency on that point, especially as they are talking about different sector arrangements with the EU, post-Brexit.
CETA’s provisions for the investment court system, or ICS, have generated particular controversy, and the Government should confirm whether they will come into effect on ratification by all member states, or by each member state, irrespective of, or subject to, the Singapore judgment. In addition, as Belgium has signalled its interest in referring the ICS mechanism to the European Court of Justice for a ruling on its compatibility with the EU treaties, the Minister should inform us whether he thinks the view of the Court is necessary and beneficial and should have been requested much earlier by the Commission.
I have outlined the main issues and concerns raised by the European Scrutiny Committee since September, and they are reflected in the amendment that I have tabled. I am sure that hon. Members will have much to add, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Greg Hands)
Welcome to the Chair, Sir Edward. I believe that it is my first time serving under your chairmanship. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the comprehensive economic and trade agreement today. I apologise for the fact that the parliamentary calendar has meant that we were unable to have this debate in the Chamber of the House of Commons, as we had hoped to. My officials, however, worked hard with business managers in the House, at a busy time for Parliament, to agree time for this debate prior to next week’s vote, on 15 February, on CETA in the European Parliament. I am pleased that we have the chance to hold this debate today, within the appropriate timetable.
The Government are clear that CETA is a good trade deal for the United Kingdom that will promote jobs and growth and help our businesses to develop and strengthen trade links with Canada, which is an important Commonwealth partner and a like-minded country on many issues. It is an important achievement, given that it is one of the most ambitious and comprehensive agreements that the EU has concluded with a major economic partner to date.
The agreement is consistent with the UK’s objectives in trade policy and with relevant wider policy goals. It is well balanced and ambitious, and will provide substantial gains for all parties on market access and rules. It will significantly improve business opportunities for UK companies in Canada by increasing our ability to access Canadian goods, services and procurement markets.
It is estimated that the deal could be worth as much as £1.3 billion per annum to the UK while we are a member of the European Union. Those benefits will be across a range of sectors. To provide a few examples, the agreement will remove all tariffs on industrial products and substantially benefit the UK’s wines and spirits industry by removing not only tariffs into Canada, but behind-the-border barriers that have limited our companies’ access in the past. It will benefit our life sciences industries, giving them greater protection for research-based pharmaceutical products.
By opening markets in that way, CETA will support jobs and growth in the UK and bring further benefits for British consumers. It has the potential to keep prices down and provide consumers with a greater choice of quality products. It is critically important that the UK continues to do all it can to support such agreements while we remain in the EU. Not only will we directly benefit from such agreements while we remain a member, but we will also benefit from the more open and prosperous trading environment that agreements such as CETA provide for the global economy. By supporting agreements such as CETA we demonstrate to the world that we remain, and will remain, the strongest global advocate for free markets and free trade. That is fundamental to the prosperity of the United Kingdom and the world economy, and is a key part of the Government’s vision for a truly global Britain.
The Government look forward to the successful passage of the CETA agreement in the European Parliament following the vote that is scheduled for 15 February, and the provisional application of the agreement in the coming months. Following the vote in the European Parliament and the start of provisional application, the Government will move towards ratifying the agreement on a timely basis, but the exact timetable is not yet decided. We will look at the parliamentary timetable and listen to the plans of other member states when deciding on a timetable for ratification in our Parliament.
It is worth clarifying that only those areas of the agreement that fall solely within EU competence will be provisionally applied. Those areas of the agreement that are within member states’ or mixed competence will not. Those areas of CETA will still require ratification by the UK and other member states before they come into effect. Those areas not being provisionally applied include a large part of the chapter on investment; the areas being provisionally applied relate only to foreign direct investment. In particular, the investment court system of arbitration referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea West is not being provisionally applied.
I know that the investment court system is one of the areas of CETA over which hon. Members have raised concerns. I look forward to discussing that further and answering any questions today. I would also like to highlight that the right of member states to regulate in their own markets is reiterated throughout the agreement. The agreement provides that member states will not have to reduce their labour and environmental standards to encourage trade and investment. Nothing in CETA prevents the UK and other member states from regulating in the pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives, such as the health of their citizens. That is in line with the Government’s clear position that protecting the NHS is of the utmost importance to the UK.
To conclude, I welcome the increased scrutiny of free trade from both Parliament and the public, and the opportunity to make the case for free trade in times of uncertainty. We will take advantage of all the opportunities available to us to ensure that Britain becomes a global leader in free trade once we leave the European Union. We will look to build on our trade and investment links with key trading partners around the world, including Canada. We are aiming to increase our ability to access markets, with a trade policy that has a global outlook, in order to ensure the prosperity of our nation in the years ahead.
The Chair
I will now take questions to the Minister, which will be brief because there will be an opportunity for debate later. I am happy to take supplementary questions.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
First, I would like the Minister to clarify a point. He said that nothing stops us protecting the NHS. Of course, he will be aware that, uniquely, CETA adopts a negative list approach. The German Government have incorporated their health service in that negative list to protect it, but the UK Government did not see fit to do the same. They reserved that for private ambulance services, but not for the NHS. Will the Minister explain why that was the case?
Greg Hands
The Government have always been clear that protecting our NHS is of the utmost importance. It is important to understand that nothing in CETA prevents the UK, or other member states, including Germany, from regulating in pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives such as those relating to the NHS. CETA will not force or incite Governments to privatise or deregulate public services, and nothing in CETA will prevent any Government from reversing any decision to privatise in those sectors. Moreover, the joint interpretative instrument that was agreed by the European Union—by the Commission—and Canada in October affirms
“the right of governments, at all levels, to provide and support the provision of services that they consider public services including in areas such as public health and education, social services and housing and the collection, purification and distribution of water.”
Barry Gardiner
The Minister will know that although the joint interpretative instrument has legal force, it does not supersede the agreement. He talked about taking back into public ownership any aspect that had been privatised; will he explain further how the ratchet mechanism works? That seems to be in place precisely to stop any country doing exactly what he has just said.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the follow-up question, but he has no need for concern in this space. The October joint interpretative instrument is a clarification of what was already in the agreement, which is clear: the NHS will be protected by our right to regulate. Other member states have those same rights.
Barry Gardiner
Many, Sir Edward. Further to my question on the NHS, will the Minister explain why the German Government and other Governments saw fit to protect their health services in their entirety, while the British Government felt the need to protect private ambulance services by listing them in the annexe, but not the health service as a whole? That is the key question. What was the rationale for that? If he believes that health services are protected under the generality of the agreement, why did he bother specifying private ambulance services?
Greg Hands
The simple answer is that it was not necessary to put that in the JII. For the benefit of the Opposition—I know there is a lot of public interest in this—I will repeat the six points to make about protections taken with regard to the NHS in CETA. First, as I have said, simply nothing in CETA would require the UK to privatise public services. Secondly, CETA contains a reservation allowing EU member states to impose a public monopoly on services considered, at national or local level, to be public utilities, including in the health sector, so even if public services are contracted out or privatised, the Government would remain able to impose a public monopoly.
Thirdly, Government procurement decisions relating to sensitive public services such as the health service are excluded from the scope of CETA. Fourthly, CETA contains EU-wide reservations specifically designed to protect particularly sensitive public services, such as health and education, ensuring that the Government may act as they consider appropriate in relation to such services when they receive public funding. Fifthly, in particular areas, the UK has taken a number of UK-specific reservations that go beyond those applying to other member states. For example, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the UK retains the right to take any measures that it sees fit concerning privately funded ambulances, because that right is not explicitly stated in the rest of the agreement—they are not a public utility.
Sixthly, CETA contains general exceptions that allow parties to take measures necessary to protect certain key public interests, including public health. Those are the six key protections. There is a specific reservation for services considered as public utilities that overrides the ratchet mechanism. Other reservations are also relevant in this space.
Barry Gardiner
I have to say that I am not satisfied with the Minister’s explanation, and nor indeed with what he said about the ratchet mechanism. I trust that we will have a chance to debate those issues. Will he provide more information on how the Government intend to transition CETA to apply to the UK once we have left the EU? He was right that the mixed investment part of the agreement would not apply in the provisional application, but he did not explain what transitional arrangements he is looking at to apply the agreement in the UK after we have left the EU.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which allows us the opportunity to explore the matter. However, we do have to bear in mind that, with regard to what transitioning might be done, that is looking fairly far into the future. We are looking to maintain existing commitments, which I think would necessarily be less complex than starting from scratch, in places where such commitments are appropriate. We will seek to achieve continuity in our trade and investment relationships with third countries, including those covered by EU free trade agreements and other preferential arrangements.
Barry Gardiner
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that because CETA was negotiated as an EU-Canada agreement, there will be areas in which what would be most beneficial to the UK has been sacrificed for the benefit of the rest of the EU, because that was the basis of the negotiation? Therefore, given that we will shortly be coming out of the EU, would it not actually be better for us to have a separate bilateral treaty? No doubt CETA could provide the basis of much of what would be contained in that. To sign ourselves up now to elements negotiated to our detriment and for the betterment of other countries in Europe would seem rather comical.
Greg Hands
Inevitably, a future UK-Canada free trade agreement or similar things would balance taking what is already there or agreed between Canada and the European Union and seeking to do something specific to the UK. Clearly at some point in the future there will be a balance to strike between continuity and seeking advantages for the UK compared to the previous agreement. However, that is a discussion for the future. The Government are strongly supportive of CETA, and at the moment we are looking to get it through the European Parliament for it to have its provisional application. The UK remains strongly supportive of CETA going through, as part of our message overall that the UK is a strong supporter of global free trade. The Prime Minister herself has said that the UK will be the most passionate, compelling and convincing advocate of global free trade, and we see CETA as part of that key agenda.
The Chair
Mr Gardiner, would you mind if I make this the last question from you, because others want to come in? You can always come in later.
Barry Gardiner
Of course, Sir Edward. To pick up on what the Minister has said, I think he accepts the basic premise that CETA was an EU-negotiated treaty and therefore some aspects of it will have been negotiated for other countries’ benefit and to our detriment. He then said that we are firm supporters of free trade—I totally agree with him that we want fair and open trade, because that is to all our benefit—but he has failed to articulate how we will be in a position to renegotiate the basis of the agreement we will have entered into under the European Union. The ratchet mechanism will still apply. He seems to think that once we have left the European Union we will be able simply to renegotiate the treaties we had, but that would be to an investor’s detriment; it would be to the detriment of Canada, which had already negotiated a better deal with us when we were part of the EU. It is very unlikely that it would concede to that. Indeed, the ratchet mechanism is there precisely to stop that.
Greg Hands
I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise that the UK sacrificed some key interests on the altar of getting an EU-wide common position before going into these complex and intricate negotiations. The important thing is that CETA would no longer apply after we leave. Having negotiated at an EU level can form a basis but there is nothing to stop us negotiating our own deal thereafter.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. A number of the points I was going to make have already been made and, breaking with tradition, I will not repeat them. However, the Minister said that this is a good trade deal. I would like to know what the implication is especially for the UK and an EU free trade deal post-Brexit. We will be looking for own free trade deal, so will this be used as a model?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for asking that very good question. The answer is yes, of course there will be some benefits in looking at the deal and its benefits once we are outside the EU. We remain strongly supportive of the deal. It is UK Government policy to support CETA going through, so of course we welcome it. We would of course look at that as the basis for a future deal. Notwithstanding that, it does not prevent us from having the flexibility also to look at the deal afresh.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks. In October the Secretary of State for International Trade apologised to the Committee as there had been no debate before the decision was made in the Council in relation to this agreement, and he promised that time would be made. We then had another apology from the Secretary of State to the International Trade Committee last week, again proffering excuses in relation to timetables.
There is no doubt that this matter should be debated on the Floor of the House. It is not good enough for a deal of such a nature to be debated in this manner. I simply do not buy the excuse of timetabling. I have sat through business questions week after week, and we have had discussions about business collapsing because there has not been enough business going on. It is not good enough to use timetabling as an excuse for this matter not to be debated as it should be.
I say that not just for our benefit. Scotland is, of course, a trading nation and there are many businesses in Scotland that have welcomed this agreement. That does not mean that it should not be scrutinised. In the light of what I call the brief Brexit White Paper, which refers to CETA, we are now looking at a different relationship. The Government will be negotiating trade deals in their own right. It does not bode well if the Government intend to proceed by doing it on their own, without seeking authority, approval and discussion. Hon. Members will have something positive to offer that might be quite instructive in negotiations. It does not bode well if this is the way the Government are to proceed. I ask the Minister to reconsider an opportunity for this matter to be debated on the Floor of the House, because that is the respect the House deserves.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. We warmly welcome parliamentary scrutiny of trade and of this agreement. Those points were made by the Secretary of State when he appeared at some length before the European Scrutiny Committee in October. To go back to the history, the European Scrutiny Committee referred the documents on 7 September, before the European Council meeting on 18 October, with barely two parliamentary sitting weeks in which to get that debate in place. It was not possible. The Committee decided to release the scrutiny override on the signature of the agreement but not on the provisional acceptance and not on the conclusion of the agreement.
When it came to the European Council meeting, of course all three decisions were taken together as a package, so it was not possible for us to, as it were, sign up to the signature of the agreement; it was “take it or leave it” on all three parts. It was decided that it was strongly in the UK national interest for us to agree to it, rather than follow the route that was ultimately taken by Belgium, among others—although it also signed up.
The Secretary of State appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee on 26 October at a stand-alone hearing, at which the hon. Member for Swansea West was definitely present, to give extensive evidence on the reasons for what happened. We have all worked very hard with business managers, and I am sure that you, Sir Edward, will have noticed other things that have come along to take charge of aspects of the parliamentary business calendar, such as the two days last week taken by the debate on article 50, or the important three-day debate under way downstairs at this moment on the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill.
The Secretary of State has at all points set out his strong preference for a debate on the Floor of the House, and we would of course prefer that and welcome the scrutiny. However, it has simply not been possible, given the limited number of days in the parliamentary calendar, for us to do that. I am confident that the right thing is for us to debate the issue in Committee, giving Parliament the chance to scrutinise the agreement in advance of the European Parliament debate during the parliamentary recess on 15 February.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is reasonable for us to expect the Secretary of State to have a handle on the business to come before Parliament over a period of time. That was promised on two separate occasions. Does the Minister agree that at the very least we should be able to rely on Secretaries of State to keep their promises to the House?
Greg Hands
As I have already explained, and as you will know, Sir Edward, I was deputy Chief Whip for some time.
Greg Hands
You will certainly know that there is pressure on the parliamentary business calendar, Sir Edward. A certain number of days are given over for Opposition day debates. Both Opposition parties have had numerous occasions on Opposition days—17 since last summer, I think—to choose the treaty as a topic. You will know, Sir Edward, about the pressure on the parliamentary calendar in unforeseen circumstances, such as the judgment of the Supreme Court.
The Chair
Order. I do not know why the Minister constantly has to pray in aid the Chair. Get on with your own arguments. Is that it?
Geraint Davies
I want to press the Minister on this point: there have been two Back-Bench business debates—one in November and one the previous November. There was a consensus on a vote in both debates that the international trade agreements—the transatlantic trade and investment partnership and CETA—should be scrutinised across Parliament in full parliamentary debates. With respect to the timetabling of the present matter, there have been three and a half months since the provisional agreement of CETA. There was a prior opportunity for the Government to call a debate. They could have done so in the knowledge that the Council of Foreign Ministers was going to sign. The Government could have timetabled it.
Instead, the Secretary of State was dragged kicking into the European Scrutiny Committee by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who demanded answers. At that point the Secretary of State said he would ensure that there was a full debate in Parliament, which he has not done. Now the issue has been hidden under the cloud of Brexit, so the media and others will take no notice of something that, if ICS goes forward, is a threat to our democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Will he answer the timetabling point again, and when he does will he also say whether he supports the ICS in principle?
Greg Hands
As I have already said, the ICS is not part of the provisional application.
Greg Hands
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the two Back-Bench business debates. As I understand it, they were not actually about CETA at all; they were about TTIP, which is not the agreement we are considering today. The European Parliament has pushed back its own debate on CETA to 15 February, which is significantly later than when it originally intended to debate and vote on this agreement. We are ensuring that our debate in the House of Commons takes place in advance of the European Parliament’s debate. That is the right thing to do, and I am confident that Members will back the decision today to go ahead with the provisional application of this agreement.
Geraint Davies
On a point of information, the debates were about international trade agreements and embraced TTIP and CETA. May I press the Minister on whether he agrees with ICS? He stated that it would not be applied, but does that not depend on how the Singapore agreement goes? He said that labour and environmental standards would not be reduced, but could they be increased, in particular with the advent of ICS? ICS would empower transnational companies, through arbitration courts, to sue the Government if they introduced new laws such as a tax on sugar to protect public health, or constraints on the effect that fracking could have on water quality, due to the extra cost or lost benefits resulting from those laws? According to him, the ICS provisions will not be ratified yet, but does he agree with ICS in principle?
Greg Hands
Let me try to take each of those two points. The UK has had its reservations about ICS, but importantly, that is part of the negotiation. We want and expect to see the details of ICS thrashed out in the coming months. The Commission and the Council have pledged to keep talking, and we are not alone in having reservations about ICS. We believe it is important to have investor protection in these agreements.
As for any decision to increase regulation, that comes back to nation states having the right to regulate. A right to regulate means an ability to decrease or increase regulation in accordance with whatever a Government and Parliament think is an appropriate course of action.
Geraint Davies
On saying that we will sign up to CETA and then do our own thing after Brexit, is the Minister aware that when CETA is fully signed, it will tie us into the agreement for 20 years and bind future Governments? We cannot just jump up and say, “We will have another agreement”, quite apart from the fact that it will be a worse agreement, because we have less negotiating power than the EU. Will he confirm that this is a 20-year agreement, and that he can give no firm undertaking that we can exit it?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will say two things. First, it does not stand to reason at all that the UK standing alone would negotiate a worse agreement than the European Union; he makes a massive set of assumptions there. Secondly, the 20-year provision relates only to investments made while CETA is in force in the UK, which there may or may not be, and while the UK is still party to CETA.
Geraint Davies
If we sign up to CETA and existing investors’ rights continue for 20 years, a fracking company that comes from the United States via a Canadian subsidiary could be subject to the capital tax concessions of 75% now in place for frackers, and to loose planning restrictions that meant that frackers could frack under your house, Sir Edward. Does the Minister agree that if a future Government decided that the planning constraints and tax concessions were too lenient, and wanted to focus on renewables, in line with the Paris agreement, the frackers could sue the Government, within a 20-year timeframe, for lost profit under ICS?
Greg Hands
That is an extremely hypothetical case. Let me be absolutely clear: CETA will no longer apply to the UK if it has been only provisionally applied. Only once CETA has been ratified by all EU member states and Canada can it be brought into force. Investments made during provisional application will not benefit from that sunset clause. The hon. Gentleman’s case is very unlikely to happen.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
May I first ask the Minister to clarify two points on the documents? Will he make it crystal clear that there is nothing in them that will cause any risk of our losing our publicly owned NHS?
Greg Hands
I am confident. The Government take the NHS extremely seriously. We believe ourselves to be the party of the NHS, and the protections for the NHS are absolutely clear. Those were made clear not just by ourselves but by the Canadians and by Cecilia Malmström, the EU’s Trade Commissioner. To be fair, she said this in relation to TTIP rather than CETA, but she made it plain that the protections for the NHS in that agreement would be clear. I am confident that the NHS will remain protected.
Peter Grant
The Minister niftily changed an absolute assurance to “confidence”. This may depend on how much confidence we have in the Government. My second point has not yet been raised: will the Minister tell us in how many instances the UK Government have asked for Scottish produce to be given the protection of geographical status? I think “protected names” is the terminology used in CETA. Those are massively important to a lot of producers in Scotland and elsewhere. How many of those names were put forward by the UK Government for inclusion under CETA?
Greg Hands
Let me come back on that specific point, but I will mention the importance of CETA to a lot of Scottish industries. There will be a big benefit, for example, for the Scotch whisky industry in Scotland, which as we know is hugely important for the UK as a whole; it will be able to be sold in Canada with no tariffs. That will be very important progress. That is just one industry; a host of other industries across the UK, including Scotland, will benefit from this agreement.
Peter Grant
I am being advised from a sedentary position that Scotch whisky should thank the UK Government; I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should thank Scotland for the bonus to his coffers, but that might be a discussion for another time. I want to pick up on the question asked earlier. A lot of people will find it difficult to understand why the Government are telling us that as soon as we are out of the EU, there will be a queue of major economic powers battering at the door to sign better trade deals than we could ever get under the EU, while at the same time Ministers have had to override waiver after waiver of scrutiny to get this deal signed as quickly as possible. Does the Minister understand that, if this deal is better than we could get after Brexit, it raises big questions about what kind of deal we can get from anybody else after Brexit?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I come back to his earlier question on UK foodstuffs to be added to the list for protected geographical indicators. The Government consulted relevant trade associations when CETA was being negotiated in 2011. At that time, no protected product was being exported to Canada in large enough quantities to be included on the proposed list of protected geographical indicators. However, CETA provides a mechanism for products to be added to the list of protected products. The Government recognise the benefits from protecting the best of our traditional and geographical food products, and will continue to work with producers to ensure appropriate protections are in place, now and in the future.
To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s question about better trading arrangements, we will have to wait and see. Article 50 has not even been triggered yet; we are still members of the EU. It is not possible for us to sign future free trade agreements while we are still a member of the EU. We are confident that the UK will be in a good position to negotiate future free trade agreements, but let us not jump the gun, and let us consider today what useful work the UK can do, in supporting agreements such as CETA, to show the importance that the UK attaches to the global free trade agenda.
Peter Grant
After its meeting on 12 October, the European Scrutiny Committee, of which I was a member at the time, agreed to a conditional waiver on the first part of the process, which is signing the treaty, but explicitly withheld consent for the other two parts. I want to ask first about the conditional waiver. One of the conditions was that the promised—not asked for, but promised—debate on the Floor on the House would be scheduled urgently. Does the Minister accept that this debate does not comply with that condition, and that even after we finish our deliberations this evening, the Government will still be in breach of the conditions of the scrutiny waiver?
Greg Hands
I have explained at some length the process that has got us from September to today. I am satisfied that the Secretary of State and the Department have put in considerable effort to enable us to have this debate today, in advance of the European Parliament debate, which is next week, during our parliamentary recess. This is a great opportunity—we have two and a half hours scheduled for today’s debate—to give the agreement proper scrutiny. I am satisfied that we have done what is in our power to make sure that is the case. I look forward to the debate.
The Chair
I will let Mr Gardiner in, and if there is time, Mr Grant can always ask another question.
Barry Gardiner
I want to pick up on the idea that the Secretary of State has done everything that could be reasonably required of him. He appeared before the European Scrutiny Committee on 26 October, which was after he had given the commitments on 7 September. He stated that he was “very happy” to have the debate on the Floor of the House. He claimed that the failure to set a date for the debate had been owing to a scheduling problem in the parliamentary calendar. In reality, as a freedom of information request submitted by my office revealed, the Government had not been delayed by a scheduling problem in the parliamentary calendar; in fact, the first time that the Department for International Trade had even approached the business managers to discuss a potential debate on CETA was on 25 October, precisely one day before the Secretary of State was due to appear before the Committee and account for his failure to schedule that debate.
Worse still, the email trail shows departmental officials asking whether they actually needed to set a date for a CETA debate at all, or whether it might be enough just to tell the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee that
“they were in the process of scheduling a debate”.
The email actually reads:
“What advice would you give would it be better to have an actual date or do you think we can just tell the chair we are in the process of scheduling a debate.”
The Chair
That is quite a long question. Shall we stop it there and let the Minister reply?
Greg Hands
I really do feel that I have already answered these questions. The hon. Member for Glenrothes, or perhaps the hon. Member for Swansea West, said that the Secretary of State was dragged before the European Scrutiny Committee. May I say that my right hon. Friend appeared just six days after the signing of the agreement, and could hardly have been quicker? That happened very quickly after scrutiny had to be overridden for the reasons that I explained: at the European Council, it would have been damaging for the UK to have appeared to obstruct CETA. That would have damaged our relations with the Commission and the EU member states, and greatly damaged our relations with Canada, one of our most important partners in the world, not just for trade but on security and other matters.
My right hon. Friend spoke to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee on a number of occasions at that time, to explain what he was doing. He made a considerable effort to make sure that the Committee was brought into that decision process. We have today’s debate, and it might be time now, Sir Edward, to move to consider the substance of the debate, rather than these process arguments. After all, we are having the debate in advance of the European Parliament debate on 15 February.
The Chair
Time is running out, and we have dealt with the issue in quite a lot of detail. I think we should think about moving on to the substance, Mr. Gardiner.
Peter Grant
On a point of order, Sir Edward. Do not Standing Orders provide for an hour for questions? I understand that if the Committee wants to suspend the Standing Order—
The Chair
It is entirely up to you, but you have not got very long left. There is quite a lot of substance to debate, but you can take up the time exactly as you want.
Barry Gardiner
I do want to address all the issues of substance. The joint interpretive instrument was prayed in aid by the Minister but, of course, that says that the right to regulate applies only to procurement conditions that do not represent unnecessary barriers to trade.
Does the Minister consider that that is a proper restriction of the right to regulate, given that the trade dispute panels, as he well knows, have interpreted that word “necessity”—the necessity test—very narrowly in the past? Therefore, to pray it in aid as showing there will be no restriction is fine-tuning the interpretation in a way that experience would belie.
Greg Hands
I repeat that the JII is there to help as an addition to the agreement. It is agreed as an extra rider, as it were, to that agreement. The agreement itself provides for the right to regulate for parties and national Governments, including for the environment, public health, public ownership and all those other important issues. I think that, in his fears about the JII, the hon. Gentleman is chasing after something that does not exist.
Greg Hands
I have already talked about some of the concerns that the UK has had over some time in relation to the ICS. For example, some things still need clarification, such as how the arbiters are chosen, the cost of the ICS, the appointments and all of those kinds of things. Those will be matters for the future for the ICS. I repeat that the ICS is not a part of what is being provisionally applied; that is, what is in front of us today.
Barry Gardiner
Would the ICS not operate with general exceptions, rather than with country-specific reservation?
Greg Hands
Can I answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific point on the ICS in a moment?
Geraint Davies
The Minister said his reservations about the ICS were about costs and choosing arbitrators and so on. He did not suggest that there was anything intrinsically wrong with the ICS. Does he agree with me that it is intrinsically unnecessary because investors are protected in Britain and Europe by three tiers of law: national, European law and the European Court of Human Rights? Similarly and in parallel in Canada, investors are protected by provincial courts, appeal courts and the Canadian Supreme Court.
Those established systems of public and contract law have protected trade between Canada and the EU in the past. The problem with the arbitration courts is that they are unnecessary, apart from the fact that they may be inherently dangerous to our democracy.
Greg Hands
Let me repeat that the ICS has not been provisionally applied. I know that I keep having to say that but it is an important point in relation to today’s debate. CETA confirms the right of state parties to regulate in the public interest. Non-discriminatory action by states should not give rise to a successful investor claim in the first place. A lot of the hon. Gentleman’s fears are not well grounded.
Tribunals can only award compensation to investors in the event of a breach of the agreement being proven. The ICS cannot force a state to amend or remove legislation. With this kind of thing, in a general sense it is important for there to be investor protection in trade agreements. How precisely that is done will be a matter for debate later. I will repeat that it is not part of what is being provisionally applied in this agreement.
Geraint Davies
With respect, the Minister has just said that arbitration courts cannot overturn legislation. What about the case of Ethyl v. Canada, which overturned a law to protect public health? What about the case of Metalclad v. Mexico? The authorities’ attempt to stop planning permission for a landfill that was polluting an entire town was overturned by an arbitration panel. The list goes on: the case of Cargill v. Mexico overturns a soft drinks tax of the sort that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) was trying to introduce here. There are consistent international examples of arbitration courts overturning publicly agreed, democratically agreed laws. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is not true.
Greg Hands
I am not aware of the specific cases the hon. Gentleman cites. I do not believe that we in the UK have been forced to change our regulation or our legal system as the result of an arbitration. The ICS cannot require us to change our laws; it is only a compensatory mechanism. Finally, I repeat that that is not what is provisionally applied under the CETA agreement.
Geraint Davies
Changing the subject, during the European Scrutiny Committee hearing the Minister and the Secretary of State said that the driving force behind signing up was our desire not to damage our relations with the EU and Canada, rather than the detail of whether the agreements might have a negative impact on our industries and, more important, our rights to decide. On the Minister’s final point, the issue here is that fining countries that pass laws to protect their citizens, public health, the environment or rights at work is intimidatory—it is the fine, the pressure, the cost. The ICS does not come in and literally write legislation. It says, “If the Government introduce a fizzy drinks tax, we will penalise you, so don’t. Let people have diabetes and die early.”
Greg Hands
It would have to be proved that that is a discriminatory action against a particular company, which I am not clear would be the case in the example the hon. Gentleman gives.
Let me return to the point about not wishing to damage relations with Canada. May I ask the hon. Gentleman—
Greg Hands
That is a fair point, Sir Edward. Let me instead ask members of the Committee to consider what the situation would have been on 18 October had it been not the Walloons who said no to the provisional agreement, but the UK. Bear in mind that the Government’s position is that we want this country to be at the global forefront of promoting free trade. Had it been the UK, which had been party to the negotiations for many years, that said no on 18 October—no to Canada, no to the Commission, no to Cecilia Malmström—it would have been catastrophic for our international relations and our trading relations. The Government’s position was and remains that this is a good agreement. Even though we are leaving the European Union, I cannot stress enough how important it is for us that CETA is passed and comes into effect.
I happened to note that earlier in the week the Opposition tabled a different amendment, one that was opposed to CETA—the actual content of CETA—rather than the procedural aspects and the lack of time, which the amendment before us today deals with. I ask all members of the Committee to consider whether we are believers in global free trade and want to have a good free trade agreement with Canada. I strongly believe it is in our country’s interests to do so, and I have yet to hear that from the official Opposition.
Barry Gardiner
Clarification that the Minister has heard that from the official Opposition today, because I stated it in the very first question I asked.
Greg Hands
The answer is this, Sir Edward. Starting “Line 10, leave out from “part;” to end and insert”, this amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea West continues: “regrets the signature and the provisional application in the coming months of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement; is of the opinion that the provisions regarding the Investment Court System are potentially harmful as they have the potential to empower corporate trade interests to the detriment of public bodies protecting the environment, food safety, public health and social rights”. This amendment expresses regret about the signature and the provisional application, even though the hon. Gentleman was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee that, at its meeting in September, agreed that the treaty should be signed.
The Chair
As you have been mentioned, Mr Davies, you may have the chance to ask another question.
Geraint Davies
On a point of order, Sir Edward. Is it in order for members of the Government to have access to the Public Bill Office when people are considering prospective amendments? That amendment was never put. This is outrageous! It is spying. This is a very serious point.
Geraint Davies
Okay, then I will go on and ask a question. I will take up the matter with the House authorities. It is disgraceful.
The previous draft amendment, which the Minister read out, expressed concern about the implementation of the investment court system. There is enormous concern about this across Europe, which is why it has been taken out of the agreement and put to one side. Such expressions have been made across the Council of Europe, representing 830 million people, which passed a legal affairs resolution only the week before last stating that the ICS should at least be amended to be in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights, that there should be a one-year opt-out, and that fines should be strictly limited to actual damages. There is nothing anti-CETA about that amendment. It says that there are concerns, so there should be a debate. It is outrageous that the Minister got hold of that somehow—perhaps he can tell us who leaked it?
Greg Hands
Sir Edward, as I understand it, amendments can be tabled in the Public Bill Office and withdrawn, which is what I understand the status of the amendment I read out to have been. It was tabled, and it is perfectly possible for people to go in and see what amendments have been tabled. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, the amendment does express regret about the signature and the provisional application. I think the onus is on the official Opposition to work out what their position is on CETA. Are they in favour of CETA or against it?
Peter Grant
May I refer the Minister to the resolution of the House of 17 November 1998, which prohibits Ministers from giving agreement to decisions in the European Council while they are still under scrutiny, and in particular to the paragraph that allows a Minister to take that action in certain circumstances? In the case of a proposal that is awaiting consideration by the House, the Minister is required to
“explain his reasons…to the House”—
not to the Scrutiny Committee but to the House—
“at the first opportunity after giving agreement.”
Agreement was given on 18 October. On what date was the statement to the House made?
Greg Hands
I am not sure that I fully followed that, but on why the UK overrode scrutiny at the European Council on 18 October, the Secretary of State wrote to the Committee to outline what he intended to do, given the fact that the three motions were to be taken as a package. He then appeared before the Select Committee as soon as possible—really as soon as possible—after that European Council, in this case on 26 October. The European Council that took place on 18 October ultimately led to the signing on 20 October. You will recall, Sir Edward, the delay caused by the Walloons seeking further clarification.
As for the provisions of the 1998 resolution, it is not entirely clear to me whether that refers to the House as whole or to the European Scrutiny Committee, which acts on behalf of the House in these matters. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman setting out some clarification. I was not a Member of the House in 1998, but I am happy to write to him to outline the impact of that measure on our interactions since it was passed.
The Chair
We are running out of time, but I could extend the time and cut into the debate on the motion. Would you like to ask one more little question, Mr Gardiner, and then we can perhaps finish this part of the sitting on time and go into the debate?
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Sir Edward. Perhaps the Minister could provide information on whether any comparison has been made between the risk from the investor-state dispute mechanism under our pre-existing bilateral investment treaties and the risk from the ICS established under CETA? Of course, 98.5% of our bilateral investment treaties in force are with non-OECD countries, and 61.45% of those treaties are so old that they predate the World Trade Organisation. There needs to have been an impact assessment of the risk from the ICS. Can the Minister assure us that that has been done? Which criteria were used in assessing the risks from the ICS? How did they compare with the risks under pre-existing bilateral treaties?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. If it is all right with him, I will write to him in some detail in response to those detailed questions about whether a risk assessment has been undertaken or not.
The Chair
That is the end of the time for questions. We will now proceed to the debate on the motion. I must inform the Committee that I have selected the amendment in the name of Geraint Davies.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 10968/16 and Addenda 1to 16, a Proposal for a Council Decision on the signing of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part; further takes note of European Union Document No. 10969/16 and Addenda 1 to 16, a Proposal for a Council Decision on the provisional application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part; further takes note of European Union Document No. 10970/16 and Addenda 1 to 16, a Proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part; welcomes the signature of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement in October 2016; looks forward to provisional application in the coming months; and notes that this is a mixed agreement which must be laid before Parliament for at least 21 sitting days without the House having resolved that it should not be ratified before the United Kingdom can ratify it.—(Greg Hands.)
Geraint Davies
On the Minister’s point that he saw a previous draft of the amendment, may I say that the problem with the procedure has been that there has not been proper scrutiny or sufficient parliamentary time to discuss the matter? At the final moment, I was alerted, as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, to the fact that I would be speaking on behalf of the Committee and that I had a few hours to table an amendment. The main concerns that have been expressed across Europe on this issue have been about the ICS, so I quickly drafted an amendment that basically pointed to the concerns about that. The Minister has rightly pointed out that that has now been put to one side and that it will be ratified separately. Basically, the amendment said that there were concerns about that and that we wanted a full parliamentary debate and to move forward. That amendment was withdrawn.
May I turn to the amendment on the table, rather than the draft scribble that I did in the heat of the night, having been told that there was a tight deadline on amendments being tabled? This amendment says that we welcome
“the prospect of enhanced trading relations between the United Kingdom and Canada”.
Let us be clear: we on the Labour Benches want more trade. We want harmonised trade and market access, but we do not want a new system of laws to be introduced for multinational companies to fine democratically elected Governments, whether they are in Canada or across Europe, in respect of laws that are passed to protect citizens in relation to public health, the environment and rights at work. That is the concern.
However, that part of our concern is not in the amendment. The amendment simply reflects the position of the European Scrutiny Committee, whose focus is on proper scrutiny. In essence, the amendment says that the Secretary of State should fulfil his obligation and his promise to the Committee to have a full debate, because fundamental issues are involved. I appreciate that people will not all agree on these things, but that is the point of democracy and debate. I appreciate the Opposition may have a view, or there may be breaks in different parts of the Opposition. We may disagree or agree, but that is not the point. The point is that this is of fundamental importance not just to our economy but to the services and democracy that we enjoy.
Am I right, Sir Edward, in thinking that I should give my entire contribution now?
Geraint Davies
Thank you, Sir Edward.
The view of the European Scrutiny Committee is that in the light of the unfortunate lack of scrutiny, all members of the Committee should find it in their heart and mind to add the words in the amendment to the motion so that we can all come together and agree it. The Government might say, “Sorry, we don’t want more scrutiny; we want to take control, but we want to take it in the corner without other people having any involvement”, but I am afraid that I will certainly not vote for a motion that does not require extra scrutiny, given that the Secretary of State has given a solemn undertaking to provide it.
I will give some of the reasons for further scrutiny given the concerns about CETA, particularly when the ICS is introduced to it. The key debate in Europe has been about why we need the ICS, and the answer that has been given is that it is to protect investors. However, we must ask how investors are protected at the moment. Are they adequately protected? The answer is that they are. In Europe they are protected by county courts, national courts and national law, European law and the European Court of Human Rights. In Canada there are provincial courts, appeal courts and the Supreme Court. The United States has a similar legal system. It is not surprising that our long-established systems of public law, contract law and commercial law balance the interests of the investor against the wider public interest.
That is particularly important in examples such as the balance of investor and environmental interest in fracking. Or perhaps an investor such as a fizzy drinks manufacturer might come along and the Government might say, as the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) did, “Actually, we’re about bit worried about diabetes and obesity; 45% of sugar consumption by teenagers is from fizzy drinks, so we’ll put a tax on them.” If that went to court, the court could say, “We’ve got to balance the public interest with investor interest”. However, an arbitration court is all about the interest of the investor and whether a particular law has had an impact on the future profitability of a legitimate investor. In the narrow case in Mexico that I mentioned, of course the court, using that narrow definition of investor interest, ruled that the tax had reduced the investor’s sales and profitability, and the public had to pay the price. That is outrageous, and we should not just nod that sort of thing through.
We have systems of law that protect both the investors and the public. The precursor to the ICS—the so-called investor-state dispute settlement—was introduced in 1957 in an agreement between Germany and Pakistan, because the Germans thought that there was some risk to their investment. I do not have anything against arbitration courts per se if they are about, for instance, European countries investing in high-risk countries with undeveloped judiciaries and unstable political environments. That means that investors can take necessary risk and the arbitration court can take a view on unreasonable sequestration.
That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about mature economies, judiciaries and democracies that already trade enormous amounts of goods and services. The great advantage of CETA is that it will pave the way for the regulation and harmonisation of standards—there are concerns about standards, incidentally, but I will come to that in a moment. The opportunity is something like 0.5% of GDP, so it is not overwhelming. Most of the problems are about tariffs, but the big problem has been about the ICS. I know that the Minister says we have set that to one side, but it will be a problem downstream. Issues such as this are fundamental to democracy, the rule of law and human rights, so we will need a proper debate. If the ICS comes in downstream and intimidates Governments into not introducing laws to protect their citizens, it will be a major problem for democracy itself. That is why there has been such a big debate among the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, above and beyond the European Union.
Barry Gardiner
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend’s points and I agree with a great deal of what he says. Does he consider that there is an irony in the fact that we are leaving the European Union in order to come out from supranational institutions that can override national Parliaments and courts, yet at the very same moment we appear to be signing up to an agreement that will give us a supranational court that sits over us?
Geraint Davies
More than an irony—a tragedy. The view of some, apparently, is that we should move out of the orbit of the European Court of Human Rights, which supports the fundamental values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and into the orbit of arbitration courts whose basic remit relates to the interests of the investor, as opposed to the wider interests of the environment. If the Minister has looked at the detail of the chapters of CETA, he will have observed that the investor chapter is armed with arbitration courts that trump national and international law, but that there are no such teeth in the environment chapter, for instance. There is no enforceability of the Paris agreement that we have all signed up to in order to save the planet. Nor, for that matter, is there any enforceability of labour rights.
We need a debate, because ICS is down the road—I accept that it has not yet come in and we can do the other bits first, but there is a concern that that is an unnecessary and dangerous prospect. I do not want to run through hundreds of cases, but there was a famous case in which Obama said to TransCanada, “We don’t want this sand oil pipeline coming in from Canada to the US, because it is a breach of the Paris agreement.” As I understand it, the case has now been dropped because Donald Trump has taken over the presidency, but TransCanada was going to sue the US for $15 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North mentioned ratcheting and reassurances about health services; there was a case in which Slovakia attempted to renationalise part of its health service and was penalised in court with fines. Hon. Members may remember that at the last election the Labour party stood up and said that it wanted to freeze energy prices; one may or may not like that idea, but Argentina was sued for $1 billion under ISDS by energy companies from America and Europe for doing exactly that. Philip Morris, famously, has been pursuing a case against Australia and Uruguay to stop plain tobacco packaging, which was introduced to reduce deaths from cancer.
The problem with these courts is that they are secret, they have a narrow remit, they are run by commercial lawyers, they are inconsistent in outcomes and they do not normally have appeals. Under the new ICS they will have appeals, but they will not adopt the doctrine of precedent, so one court’s verdict may not inform the next court. The Council of Europe, which I mentioned earlier, has therefore said, “Hold on—we are very concerned about the investment court system, but if and when it does come in, it should be subject, as a minimum, to a number of constraints. In accordance with the European Court of Human Rights, there should be one-year opt-outs with six-year investor protection, and there should be actual damages rather than the fantasy projections of profit that have been sued for.”
I have already mentioned the problems with secrecy and lack of accountability. The Secretary of State seemed to think that it was marvellous that we should be able to go into a library on our own and have a look at the CETA documents, without taking photocopies. Obviously, no one can really understand what they are looking at and gain a meaningful view in the amount of time they are given. It seems to have been a bit of a joke, to put it mildly.
There are other issues that the Minister may want to respond to. There is widespread concern about European standards, for example, in relation to genetically modified food and other food standards, so can he give us any assurances that we will not be slipping to the lowest common denominator in health and equality standards? There are concerns that the precautionary principle, which has been a principle of EU law, has not in fact been instilled into CETA.
People are also concerned that there is a move away from openness in clinical trials. As Members may be aware, the clinical trials directive requires pharmaceutical companies to go public with the outcomes of their clinical trials. As I understand it, CETA will give private companies the right to withhold the outcomes of clinical trials. For example, if a company such as the one that manufactured thalidomide found that half the trials for a certain drug were negative and half were positive, it could publish only the half that were positive. What does the Minister have to say about that? What about the issues relating to trade secrets in CETA? He may think that these are minor points, but I want some reassurance.
I am trying to make the case that, given that there are so many issues, we need a proper debate. Parliamentarians are concerned. When we look at VW fixing emissions, for example, we see that there are new opportunities in CETA for trade secrets. If an employee blows the whistle because they discover that their company is harming public health, for example with diesel emissions, or a drug that harms babies—whatever it is—they can be punished by the company. These are issues of concern that require clarity and debate.
There are concerns about labour rights and whether there will be an assurance that International Labour Organisation conventions will be fulfilled. There are concerns about level playing fields and whether procurement will be equal and apposite. There are concerns about winners and losers, which the European Scrutiny Committee has also debated. We are told that there will be an overall GDP gain of something like 0.5%, but which sectors will win and which will lose? Will small companies lose out? The Prime Minister has already said that she will back certain winners, so perhaps motor manufacturers will get a good deal, but there is some fear that Welsh lamb producers could face a 40% tariff after Brexit. We also have the concern, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, about geographical indicators. Welsh lamb was not a geographical indicator originally, so in theory someone could sell in Britain lamb that had been produced in Canada and call it Welsh lamb. That is a real problem.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
It is important to be clear that no one in this debate is against trade—quite the opposite. What we are talking about is the fact that many Members wanted an opportunity to debate this because they have postbags full of letters from people with experience in a variety of areas that they wish to bring to the fore so that they can inform the UK Government’s future trade policy and also voice their concerns. This is not about having a debate for debate’s sake, which feels like what we are doing here; this is about the Government missing an opportunity genuinely to listen to Members who have received representations from constituents who have knowledge in these different areas, some of which the hon. Gentleman has referred to, which are worth hearing. That is why this is just not up to standard.
Geraint Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for making that excellent point. I must say that, even though this debate has been buried in a foxhole, I have received hundreds of emails from people across the country saying, “At least you’re doing something about it” in having this sitting. I appreciate that that is better than nothing, but this is such a big issue that we need a wider debate.
The Sun carried a half-page article under the headline, “EU deal will give pasties a pasting”, because there is reasonable concern about the Cornish pasty and geographical indicators. The Italians and the French have been slightly quicker off the mark in registering champagne, various sorts of cheeses and pastas and all the rest of it, than us. We have caught up a bit, but there need to be clear undertakings that there will be new geographical indicators so that we can have protection. We know that the Americans and Canadians are used to global brands, while we are more used to a European approach, so those issues need to be talked about.
The issue of transparency and scrutiny needs to be talked about as this agreement will be the forerunner to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, if it is ever revived, which depends on Donald, of course. This agreement could be a blueprint for global trade. If it is to be, it needs to embrace not only the best in trade, transparency and harmonisation, but the best in ensuring that trade is compatible with our environmental imperatives to deliver the Paris agreement and human rights as well.
You will be glad to hear, Sir Edward, that I shall close my remarks here. I simply wanted to lay down some markers that this issue is crucial to all parliamentarians—not just across Britain, but across Europe and Canada. We need a proper debate, which we were promised. We want to give this agreement our blessing, subject to that ratification by the House of Commons. That is why I am speaking to this reasonable amendment, which accords with what the European Scrutiny Committee has said. People should not say, “We don’t support this because we heard that you were thinking of a different amendment to start with.” That has nothing to do with this amendment, which is about scrutiny, democracy, accountability and upholding our rights, rather than nodding them away.
The Chair
The Minister could speak now, but I think I will call Mr Gardiner and then Mr Grant. However, they must allow the Minister at least 15 minutes to reply. Is that all right with the Minister?
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, Sir Edward. I welcome the opportunity, under your chairmanship, to address the Committee in this important and long overdue debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West speaks here for the European Scrutiny Committee. I speak for the official Opposition, and I am delighted to support the cross-party amendment tabled by me, my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Glenrothes.
For the avoidance of any doubt—there was doubt, because the Minister tried to sow it—the Labour party believes in an open, fair system of trade. Trade is one of the most effective means of creating shared prosperity and decent jobs. From the very first, when free trade was a radical cause in British politics, my party argued for open markets in the crisis years of the 1920s and ’30s, as mounting calls for protectionism led the world towards disaster.
We understand the power of fair and open trade today. We share the dream of the vast majority of people around the world who want closer ties between countries. We want to build trade links, not protectionist walls. Trade is one of the most important mechanisms for binding peoples together, but we want trade agreements that respect—
Greg Hands
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his party leader, who described free trade as a dogma?
Barry Gardiner
I am not interested in university debating points ad hominem. Free trade has become narrowed in its interpretation. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that I have focused on the benefits that an open and fair trading system can bring, and that is what we want, but we want trade agreements that respect sovereignty and that benefit little companies, not just major corporations. We want trade agreements that make our society a more, not less, equal place. That is why I am delighted to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West.
I want to deal with the process first. I will try to be brief because we talked a great deal about this issue during the questions. The failure to bring consideration of CETA to a full debate on the Floor of the House should be a matter of not only regret by the Government, but deep disquiet for hon. Members from all parties. The job in front of the Committee today is very clear. It is not to decide whether CETA should proceed or not. It is to decide whether it is appropriate, given all the concerns there are about CETA, that the Secretary of State should honour the promise and commitment he gave to the House in his written statement and to the European Scrutiny Committee and that we should debate this on the Floor of the House.
I welcome the fact that we have finally today been given the opportunity to discuss this issue, but I cannot help but record that at its meeting on 7 September last year the European Scrutiny Committee recommended CETA for an early debate on the Floor of the House. It did so in view of the unprecedented public interest shown in this new generation of international trade agreements and the complex legal and policy issues raised for the UK. The Committee granted the Government a waiver to allow them to sign CETA at the EU Council of Ministers, but that waiver was conditional upon the promised debate being scheduled urgently to take place on the Floor of the House and at the very latest, it said, before the provisional application of CETA.
As I said, the Secretary of State appeared before the Committee on 26 October. He said that that he was “very happy” to have that debate on the Floor of the House and claimed that the failure to do so had been the result of scheduling problems in the parliamentary calendar. In reality, as the freedom of information request I referred to earlier showed, the Government had not been delayed by a scheduling problem in the parliamentary calendar at all. In fact, the first time the Secretary of State’s Department even approached the business managers to discuss a potential debate on CETA was 25 October—one day before the Secretary of State was due to appear before the European Scrutiny Committee to account for his failure to do so.
“What advice would you give”—
the Department asked—
“would it be better to have an actual date or do you think we can just tell the chair we are in the process of scheduling a debate”.
That does not sound like a Secretary of State committed to full parliamentary scrutiny and to keeping his promise. The Government confirmed in their subsequent letter of 30 November that they recognised a debate on the Floor of the House of Commons to be “of the utmost importance”.
Michael Tomlinson
Earlier in the Committee, the hon. Gentleman asked many questions about the process, but we are now in the debate. All Members of Parliament are entitled to attend the Committee and debate the matter, although not all Members are entitled to vote. I agree with him that it is regrettable we are not there; we are here. Should we get on with the debate?
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Gentleman is right that all Members of the House have the right to attend the Committee, but he will have noticed that this one and only opportunity for them to do so was deliberately timetabled at the same time that the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill is being considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. I do not believe that is a coincidence. I do not believe that is a mistake. I believe that it is part of a deliberate attempt to stop proper scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman talks about scrutiny and about moving this debate on to substantive issues within CETA, but the debate on the motion and amendment is precisely about whether this matter should go to the Floor of the House. That is why the process is important. We need to see that proper process has been kept, and sadly it has not.
Geraint Davies
Does my hon. Friend agree that in the three and a half months that the Government have had to hold the debate, this is probably the best time for them to have it in terms of hiding bad news under the noise of the Brexit debate? This is clearly pre-planned to stop proper scrutiny, public debate and media coverage.
Barry Gardiner
I wholeheartedly agree. We must now move forward. The Government said that it was of the utmost importance to have the debate on the Floor of the House, yet we find ourselves 68 days later with a debate up in Committee Room 10.
The European Scrutiny Committee issued the Government with a waiver, to allow them to sign CETA at the Council of Ministers. The Committee made it clear that the waiver did not extend to the provisional application or conclusion of CETA. The Secretary of State chose to disregard the Committee. We have heard from the Minister today the reason why: because it was bundled. It is important that we hear from him whether the UK made any objection or moved any procedural motion during the Council of Ministers to unbundle it, so that the Secretary of State could observe the protocols that he had undertaken to the Committee.
I can only concur with the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, who said that it was a “serious” breach when the Secretary of State failed to honour the waiver he had been given. That stands in stark contrast to the many statements made by the Government in recent days to assure us of their commitment to respecting parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
In the same vein, there has been a marked failure to present CETA for consultation before the devolved Administrations, despite the fact that their Departments are all listed in the annex of entities covered by the public procurement rules of CETA and are thus exposed to CETA’s strictures on central and sub-central Government entities alike. I call on the Government to remedy that failure as a matter of urgency, before initiating the process for ratification of CETA in the House. I hope that the Minister feels that he can give an undertaking on at least that level.
With regard to process, the Government failed to meet their own successive promises to bring CETA forward for a full debate on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State was, at best, disingenuous in the statements made to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. He explicitly broke the waiver that the Committee had given to him, when he approved both the provisional application and the conclusion of CETA, and his Department has failed to engage with and consult the devolved Administrations in respect of an agreement that has specific application to them. Those are serious procedural failures that show a disregard for the proper scrutiny of Parliament, and they provide, in themselves, a compelling case for the Committee now to insist that the Government bring that full debate to the Commons. However, there are substantive reasons as well as procedural ones and, in many respects, they are more compelling.
I turn, therefore, to the content of CETA. It will be a surprise to the Committee to learn that the Government have not commissioned any research on what the impact of CETA might be on the UK economy. That should be a matter of concern, because the Government have repeatedly claimed, as the Minister did in his opening remarks, that CETA will bring up to £1.3 billion extra to the UK economy. Let me straightaway say that I would be the first to cheer if that were a credible prospect, but the Government admitted in their explanatory memorandum of July 2016 that it simply took a projection of overall gains to the EU and divided it by the UK’s share of EU GDP to come up with that figure. That is back-of-an-envelope calculation. It has to qualify as one of the crudest and least credible methodologies ever adopted to project the impact of a major trade agreement.
Only one study to date has disaggregated the prospective impacts of CETA on individual EU member states, and it concluded that countries such as France, Germany and Italy would indeed see an increase in their exports as a result of CETA. However, the study is clear that the UK would experience a decrease in both its exports and its balance of trade. At a time when the UK balance of trade is already under so much pressure, the very possibility that we might suffer a loss of exports should give us pause for proper scrutiny. At the very least, a proper impact assessment of how the agreement will specifically affect the UK needs to be conducted. That further underlines the need for the promised debate on the Floor of the House.
Members will also be surprised to learn that the Government have failed to list in annex 20 to the agreement a single one of the dozens of great British food products that qualify for protected geographical status. The UK is the only major EU member state that failed to secure such protection in CETA for its food businesses. The “Geographical Indications” annex of CETA is page after page of products listed for protection by France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain, Romania, Austria, Hungary and the rest, but there is not a single one from the UK. There is no protection for Scotch beef, Scotch lamb, Scottish farmed salmon, Welsh beef, Welsh lamb, Cornish pasties, west country farmhouse cheddar, blue Stilton, or white for that matter. More than 50 other British products that should qualify for protected geographical status are simply not protected. How can the Secretary of State have failed to protect a single one of our products under CETA? No wonder he does not want the matter to be discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons.
CETA is also remarkable in its complete disregard for the interests of small and medium-sized enterprises. Even TTIP contained a dedicated chapter outlining the support measures that the EU and the USA would introduce for SMEs. By contrast, in all the 2,255 pages of CETA there is not one single commitment to further the export interests of SMEs.
In recent times, we have heard much talk of the Government’s commitment to parliamentary sovereignty. The Prime Minister has declared that leaving the EU will allow Britain to be a fully independent, sovereign country once again, no longer subject to
“supranational institutions that can override national parliaments and courts.”
Likewise, the Secretary of State for International Trade has given us his vision of
“Britain as an independent sovereign nation, with a parliament beholden to no one”.
Yet, if we look at last week’s White Paper, it spelled things out very clearly. It has an annex about CETA—it creates a framework of supranational institutions that are precisely designed to override national Parliaments and courts. Along with the CETA Joint Committee, which will have binding powers over sovereign Parliaments in future, CETA includes the investment court system, the latest form of the ISDS mechanism, to allow foreign investors to sue host Governments over public policy measures that undermine their profits. Under CETA, a foreign company will have the right to bypass the domestic courts and avail itself of its own privileged commercial judicial system to challenge any regulatory reforms that run counter to its “legitimate expectations” as a profit-making enterprise, claiming vast sums in compensation even when Parliament has approved the reforms.
We in the Labour party are opposed to any system that grants foreign investors private justice in their own private courts. As noted in the charter for progressive trade deals that we adopted last year, we uphold the basic principle of equality before the law, which requires foreign investors to abide by the same rules as everyone else, in the same judicial system as everyone else. Foreign investors can have full confidence in the British legal systems to obtain redress where their interests have been unfairly harmed, and the British people can have confidence that the courts will then balance the competing interests of foreign companies and the public good when making their judgments. A company, however, does not even have to win its case in the investor court system to undermine UK sovereignty. The very threat of a legal challenge and the scale of both costs and potential damages can make Governments back away from regulation that would be in the public interest, and can exert its own regulatory chill on Government plans for new legislation. It was a legal technicality that prevented Philip Morris from obtaining billions of dollars of compensation that it sought in its case against Australia’s law on plain packaging for cigarettes. That did not stop other countries backing away from introducing similar measures for fear of being hit with their own claims.
The Chair
Order. Mr Gardiner, this is a very comprehensive speech, and very well written, but you will think of others, won’t you?
Barry Gardiner
Indeed.
Canadian companies have been among the most litigious in using the ISDS powers that exist in other treaties, yet we have learned from parliamentary questions that the Government have failed to conduct any risk assessment of the potential threats of investor-state challenges to health or the environment. That is another reason for the Committee to insist upon a full parliamentary debate on the issue. Such risk assessments are absolutely standard in other countries preparing to adopt ISDS provisions in their trade or investment agreements, and the Minister really must explain why no such impact assessment was conducted.
It is not just Canadian firms that will be able to use CETA to challenge social and environmental protections. Around 80% of the 13,000 US companies that operate in the UK have active subsidiaries operating in Canada, through which they will be able to bring ISDS claims, using the new CETA investment court system. That means that, overnight, 10,000 US firms will gain the right to sue the UK over any new social, environmental or public health regulations that might adversely affect their profits in future.
In that way, CETA will open the floodgates to precisely the wave of suits that the UK Government were warned about in the cost-benefit analysis that they commissioned from the London School of Economics back in 2013. That study made it clear that providing north American investors with privileged rights would bring no benefits whatsoever to the UK economy, but would incur “considerable” monetary costs to the UK taxpayer, as well as significant political costs.
The investment court system has been rejected by the European Association of Judges, which represents 44 national associations, and by the German Magistrates Association. More than 100 legal scholars from European universities have issued a strongly worded statement warning that the inclusion of such powers in CETA would undermine not only the rule of law but the very principles upon which our democracies are founded.
On the other side of the Atlantic, a group of Canadian lawyers with direct experience of investor-state disputes have published a letter outlining the threats that the investment court system poses—
“the undermining of democratic regulation, the special privileging of foreign investors, the lack of judicial independence and procedural fairness in the adjudicative process, and the lack of respect for domestic courts and domestic institutions.
Those are serious charges that deserve to be debated in full on the Floor of the House of Commons, as was promised.
CETA departs from all previous EU trade agreements in being the first in which the EU has accepted the high-risk negative list approach to scheduling our service sectors. Under that approach, all sectors that are not explicitly exempted are automatically committed to binding liberalisation, including future services that have not even been invented yet. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West gave certain examples. One might consider the potential ban on microbeads in cosmetics as another thing done for the public good that could open the Government up to a suit.
The adoption of the negative list method in CETA marks a significant departure from the EU’s previous use of the positive list approach, whereby only sectors actively listed for inclusion are subject to the rules and disciplines of the agreement. CETA introduces the standstill and ratchet mechanisms, which prevent countries from reversing liberalisation commitments already made in their service sectors, whether now or in the future. The standstill clause states that Governments forfeit the sovereign right to introduce any reforms that could reverse the level of market liberalisation registered in CETA. The “ratchet” clause goes even further, in that future Governments will lose the right to reverse liberalisation measures that might be introduced in years to come.
There has been much concern about whether our public services are vulnerable to attack from the far-reaching provisions of CETA. Trade lawyers from within and without the European Commission have cast serious doubts on the validity of the repeated assurances that public services such as the NHS are safe. Suffice it to say that on the European side, the only sectors definitively carved out of CETA are audio-visual services—in deference to the French exception culturelle—and certain air services. There is no disagreement that health, education, post, rail and waste water services are all covered by CETA.
Individual EU member states were permitted to register their national reservations in the two service annexes to CETA. To compensate for the lack of certainty surrounding the status of public services, the German Government took out a comprehensive reservation to ensure that all their health and social services would be fully protected from the threat of market liberalisation under CETA. The UK Government entered reservations for certain aspects of privately funded health and social services only, including privately funded ambulances, but they failed to protect the core functions of the NHS.
Going into the full intricacies of this complex issue would take us beyond the time that we have available this afternoon, but the lack of clarity plaguing the situation is yet another argument for the fuller debate on CETA on the Floor of the House that we were promised. I simply mention that the official impact assessment carried out for the European Commission at the start of negotiations included a specific warning that health and education services should be exempted from any investor-state dispute disciplines adopted in CETA. The fact that the recommendation was not taken up in the negotiations or the legal scrubbing that delivered the final CETA text is yet another reason why we must avoid rushing into an agreement that could see us bound to a deal that may well be in the best interests of our fellow European countries, but not our own. Indeed, hon. Members might consider that it would be better to conclude a separate deal with Canada when we have the legal capacity to do so on our own, outside the EU.
Those are some of the most pressing concerns we have on CETA, but I will make one final observation. The Secretary of State for International Trade stated last week that he intends to adopt all the EU’s free trade agreements into stand-alone UK treaties with the trading partners in question. The Canadian Government, for their part, said that they see CETA as the baseline for any future UK-Canada trade deals. Moreover, Ministers in this country have suggested that CETA could even provide the blueprint for a future UK-EU trade deal.
All those considerations underline the critical importance of getting it right on CETA. They underline the critical danger of not submitting the agreement to the full level of scrutiny that it deserves. There is still time for the CETA debate to be scheduled on the Floor of the House, as we were promised, and for parallel consultations to be held with the devolved Administrations before the provisional application of CETA comes into effect. That was the original chronology stipulated by the European Scrutiny Committee. Certainly the process of ratification must not be initiated in this country before Parliament has had the opportunity to decide on this issue, so I support the amendment.
The Chair
The debate must stop at 7 pm and it is only fair to give the Minister at least 15 minutes to reply.
Peter Grant
I think that means I have as long as the hon. Member for Brent North had after starting to come to his conclusions, so I will try and keep by comments brief.
The Minister asked what the Opposition’s view of CETA was. Well, there is not just one Opposition—even on this small Committee there are at least two Oppositions, and possibly more, but we will see later. The Scottish National party’s position on trade is that we want it. We form the Government of a country whose exports are worth almost £30 billion a year, excluding oil and gas—that counts as Scottish produce when it is bad news but not when it is good news. That is equivalent to about £100 a week exported for every man, woman and child in the country.
We can do that because we have confidence in our producers to compete on a level playing field with anybody anywhere in the world on quality, whether in food and drink, which have been mentioned, our tourism provision or invisible exports such as higher education. Scotland has nothing to fear from fair trade, which is why we are staying in the single market even after some Members here have chosen to leave, but we have to ensure that removing barriers to fair trade does not create opportunities for the destruction or hijacking of important public services. I welcome the assurances that the Minister has given us today, but I still want to hear them given to the entire House of Commons, not simply because I think that is what should happen, but because a Minister of the Crown promised that it would happen.
The Minister and some of his colleagues on the Government Benches keep talking about debating the process as if that did not matter. We should remember that the European Parliament, the Court of Justice and the European Commission are processes. If we are not interested in processes, why are we going through the chaos of Brexit to change the process by which our laws are made and interpreted? The process matters. Strange though this may seem coming from somebody who, as hon. Members will have gathered, is not a great fan of this place, I think that the principle of Ministers’ accountability to Parliament is so important that I would be prepared to see a delay in a trade deal that I was 100% in favour of if that would ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny. When I am here, I am not just speaking for myself. When the whole House is assembled, we are all speaking for others, and those others have raised significant concerns, whether they are well founded, based on misinformation or based on good information. Those concerns can be addressed without scuppering the whole treaty.
This issue is too important to be discussed late on a Monday evening in an upstairs Committee room in the House of Commons. I had a look at the BBC website a few minutes ago. There are 11 different headlines on the politics page, but this debate does not feature—that is how successfully it has been hidden away. I cannot see into the minds of the managers of the Government’s business. It might just be a coincidence that we got notified of the date, time and place of this meeting on exactly the same day as the programme motion for Committee stage of the Withdrawal from the European Union (Article 50) Bill appeared on the Order Paper. It might just be a coincidence that after five months of waiting for an urgent debate, it suddenly gets programmed for a day on which nobody but nobody is going to be paying the slightest bit of attention to it.
If the Minister is concerned that delaying the signing of CETA will somehow damage Britain’s reputation in trade circles around the world, what does it do to the Government’s reputation when a Minister goes before a Select Committee and says that he agrees that there needs to be an urgent debate before the full House of Commons, yet months later it still has not happened, and then another Minister comes along and says, “Well, yes, the Secretary of State gave that commitment, but it really doesn’t matter because we’re far too busy getting out of the European Union to worry about parliamentary democracy”? I do not think anything can make us too busy for that.
I simply do not believe that it is purely due to a lack of time that after five months we have not had an urgent debate on a major issue that has caused a lot of concern to well-meaning, sincere and genuine citizens the length and breadth of these islands. I simply do not believe that, if the Government wanted to schedule a debate on the Floor of the House at some point since 7 September, they could not have found a way of doing so. If that is not the case, and if five months genuinely was not long enough to schedule a three-hour debate on the Floor of the House, we should remember that the same Government tell us that they can negotiate an entirely new relationship with 27 different countries in just under 18 months. If that does not send a chill down the spine, I do not know what will.
Incidentally, I do not care what amendments the hon. Member for Swansea West doodled down, submitted and decided not to follow through with. Perhaps Government Members should think more about articles that were written about the case for staying in the European Union, which were somehow never published, by someone who had a kind of road-to-Damascus conversion and is now one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Brexit. We should remember that he has also changed his opinion about Donald Trump since he got elected to the presidency.
We are not debating amendments that were drafted and never submitted or amendments that were submitted and then withdrawn; we are debating the amendment before us. I ask this of Conservative Members. I know that the Government and the Whips have told them what they want to do, but if they seriously believe that a major reason for exiting the European Union was to restore parliamentary democracy—I will not refer to parliamentary sovereignty, because that does not exist equally in all four parts of these islands—and if they want to restore parliamentary supremacy over Europe, surely we should also be maintaining parliamentary supremacy over Ministers of the Crown.
This is not an isolated case. I have sat beside the hon. Member for Swansea West many times in the European Scrutiny Committee, and I have lost count of the number of times that that Committee, which has a built-in Government majority, has savaged Ministers one after the other for their complete failure to show any respect whatever for the due processes of the House. If the Government do not like the processes, they are perfectly entitled to bring forward changes and to ask the House to agree to them.
Geraint Davies
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if our Chairman, the hon. Member for Stone, were here, he would demand a full debate and full scrutiny, as we do today?
Peter Grant
I am grateful for that intervention. I rather suspect that the hon. Member for Stone is more than capable of speaking for himself. We disagree significantly on a number of issues, but on this issue he and I agree entirely. Given that he has never opposed any of his Committee’s reports, and that we have had report after report severely criticising the Government for failure to bring important matters of public policy forward for debate, either in Committee or in the House, it is reasonable to take it that not only the Chair, but members of that Committee across the parties, agree that the Government, for far too long, have not been interested in being held to account by the House of Commons.
I make a final plea to those on the Government Benches. I am not asking them to support the amendment because I want to give the Government a going over, because, quite frankly, they are doing that well enough themselves just now. I am not doing it because I want to block the treaty, because my view is that, with a few changes, the treaty could be a good thing for the vast majority of people on these islands. I am asking them to do it because it is what they believe in.
Tory Members are taking us out of the EU. Some of them did not support that at the referendum, but last week only one Member on the Tory Benches voted against the Bill, so they are now accepting that the UK is leaving the EU, and a major purpose in doing that is to restore what they term parliamentary sovereignty. If they are not prepared to stand up for parliamentary sovereignty when it relates to Ministers in the UK Government, we have no chance of restoring parliamentary democracy anywhere else. I make a final plea: please do what you know is the right thing to do. We are not talking about holding things up. We are simply talking about giving the House of Commons its proper place in oversight over Government decisions that will continue to affect all our lives, and the lives of future generations for many decades to come.
Greg Hands
We have had a good, wide-ranging and lengthy debate, which I welcome. I would like to address some of the important issues raised by members of the Committee, but first I make it clear that the NHS is not at risk from CETA. That is of fundamental importance to the Government. A careful assessment of the legal protections was carried out by lawyers, and we ensured that we were fully satisfied that the NHS is not at risk.
Nothing in CETA prevents the pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives, such as protecting the NHS. To reinforce that point, CETA does not get in the way of our sovereignty on any such matters. The joint interpretive instrument clearly states that the parties have the right to regulate in this manner. The UK can choose to protect public health—by regulating fizzy drinks, for example; that was one of the issues raised earlier. Linked to that is the fact that Governments are also allowed to protect labour rights—
Greg Hands
I am going to make progress first. There are a lot of points to answer after two hours of debate.
Linked to that is the fact that Governments are also allowed to protect labour rights and human rights. A fair, non-discriminatory and proportionate action taken by a member state Government, including to protect human rights, would not breach investment protection. Governments are also able to take action to protect the environment as they see fit. I want to restate that this Government support transparency and proper scrutiny of the agreement. We have followed the usual procedure and engaged extensively with the scrutiny Committees in both Houses, as I outlined. I will add more detail in a moment. Crucially, we have worked hard to secure this debate in advance of the vote on CETA in the European Parliament on 15 February.
To be clear, the Committee requested the debate on 7 September, ahead of the conference recess, which, as we all know, ran from 15 September to 10 October, so it was not possible to schedule the debate before then. CETA was fast-moving, and was originally scheduled for agreement at the end of September. It was only later on that it slipped to 18 October, and eventually 20 October. I hope that the hon. Member for Brent North understands that it has not been possible to schedule the debate on this timetable. The Government have, as has been noted, opened a TTIP reading room for parliamentarians; that is not dissimilar to the operations of the European Parliament. We warmly welcome that ability of Members of Parliament to engage. We have also written proactively to the scrutiny Committees in both Houses on the subject of ongoing trade negotiations; that goes back some time.
The Government are fully committed to transparency and consulting with a wide range of stakeholders during trade negotiations, including the devolved Administrations, while recognising that trade policy is reserved to the United Kingdom. We have provided updates to the devolved Administrations during the process, and my Department looks forward to consulting with them going forward.
On the investment court system of arbitration, the UK welcomes the investment protection provisions in CETA. We also welcome the clear statement of the right of Governments to regulate. We support the inclusion of dispute settlement provisions. It is important for there to be a dispute settlement procedure, but we continue to have concerns about the cost and effectiveness of the proposed ICS. The UK will continue to work with other member states to improve the system.
Geraint Davies
If we must have a dispute settlement system, how is it that we have had successful trade between Canada and the EU based on the fact that we have national courts, European law and the European Court of Human Rights in Europe, and provincial courts, the Supreme Court and appeal courts in Canada? Investors are happy. We do not need the system. No case has been made.
Greg Hands
Foreign investment is incredibly important to this country. It is also important that we protect our investors in markets such as Canada. It is important that we ensure those things are protected, while also protecting the right of member states and Parliament to legislate as they see fit, and the right to regulate. The UK will continue to work with other member states to improve the system. I restate that crucially, the ICS is not being provisionally applied here. Parliament and the UK will therefore have the option further to debate and scrutinise the system, and CETA in its entirety, as part of the ratification process.
In the time available, I will deal with as many of the many points raised as I can. The hon. Member for Brent North asked why there has been no impact assessment of ICS or its predecessor, ISDS. The answer is that ISDS has been in operation for some time. The UK Government have never had a successful case taken against us. All the cases listed earlier were not actions against the UK Government. I reinforce that the system does not, will not and cannot supersede national laws.
Greg Hands
I am going to make a bit more progress, because a lot of points have already been raised. We had an extensive question-and-answer session and extensive speeches that I need to respond to, to be fair.
A question was asked about the methodology for the £1.3 billion figure, which is what the UK will likely gain from the agreement once it is fully in operation. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, that was not produced simply by restating EU estimates. The figure is the result of modelling commissioned by the Government during the course of the negotiations, and it shows broad benefits across a range of sectors.
Barry Gardiner
I refer to the explanatory memorandum of July last year, which explicitly states the way in which the figure was calculated. I can find the exact reference.
Barry Gardiner
It is the Department for International Trade’s “Explanatory Memorandum on European Union Document: Proposal for a Council Decision on the provisional application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Canada of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, of the other part”, from July 2016.
Greg Hands
The figure of £1.3 billion may be the same one that the hon. Gentleman cites, but I am confident that my figure is the result of modelling commissioned by the Government.
I was asked whether environmental standards can be increased. Article 24.3 of CETA specifically provides that parties are free to establish their own environmental standards. The hon. Member for Swansea West raised fracking. Contrary to what he said, CETA does not get in the way of the right to regulate. Exactly as we would expect, it does not give fracking companies the right to invest in the UK if they are in breach of UK national laws.
Greg Hands
No, because I am worried about finishing within the time limit.
Crucially, the mere loss of profit is not sufficient to ground a claim in the ICS process. Even if it were, it would not require us to change our laws. Why did we not raise reservations, as other countries did, and protect our public services? Well, we do have a few reservations in CETA, but we have never been subject to a trade dispute concerning public services. We are confident that if one arose, we would defend it.
On geographic indicators, CETA allows for future protection of geographic status, as I have already said. When the negotiations took place in 2011, there was insufficient trade in specific goods for us to qualify. However, it is incredibly important to think about the impact that CETA will have on our ability to export key UK products. I mentioned Scotch whisky earlier; UK cheeses will now be able to enter the Canadian market free of tariffs or other barriers. There will also be zero tariffs on industrial goods. There are a host of things, and all of them will be of immense benefit to the UK and all its constituent parts.
We have delivered on our undertaking to have a debate on CETA. The hon. Member for Brent North was right to draw attention to the European Scrutiny Committee’s request for a debate before the provisional application of CETA at the very latest, but there has not yet been provisional application; that is subject to the European Parliament’s vote on 15 February. Nor has the matter fully progressed through the Canadian Parliament. We are fully in conformity with the European Scrutiny Committee’s request. I urge Members to vote against the amendment.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Swansea West raised previous debates on international trade treaties. One fascinating aspect of this debate is where the official Opposition stand on these subjects. I am glad that he mentioned his debate on 15 January 2015, because two of the then Back Benchers who featured in that debate were the right hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who spoke out very strongly against TTIP and against this kind of international trade treaty.
Geraint Davies
The Minister will also remember the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) speaking strongly against this proposal, with reference to national sovereignty and interference. All sorts of people take all sorts of angles on this; that is why we need a debate. All we are saying is, “Have a debate”, because we cannot agree. It is absolutely outrageous to railroad democracy in this way, and it is a recipe for future railroading.
Greg Hands
I note that we have already had two and a quarter hours tonight—there has been quite a good debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that concerns have been voiced, but there is not necessarily outright opposition. We, too, have concerns about ICS, and I have raised some of them tonight. However, I have to point out that he is wholly opposed to CETA. At least, that is what he said last week.
The Chair
Mr Davies, you are murmuring a lot. You’d better give way to him, Minister, because I do not want him to blow up; it could be messy.
Geraint Davies
In essence, I am in favour of free trade, and I think CETA and TTIP could be blueprints for future trade. The issue is to get them right, and not to give them special powers whereby transnational companies can undermine our democracy and liberties.
Greg Hands
I am not going to dwell on this for too long. We heard this evening the hon. Member for Brent North make what sounded like a very long speech against the agreement; it now turns out that he is in favour of it. The hon. Member for Swansea West was strongly against it last week and called for debates on this subject previously, in which the leader of his party and the shadow Chancellor appeared with him. The hon. Member for Nottingham East, who is a member of the International Trade Committee, is not here this evening but may well have a different view. As for the Labour Whip, who knows where Labour Whips stand these days on party policy?
I have two other points. The hon. Member for Brent North talked about a study showing that apparently the UK would suffer a loss of exports. He carefully did not mention what that study was. I suspect it is the Tufts University study, which uses an approach that is useful for analysing a number of global macroeconomic issues, but is not suitable for trade policy analysis. The ICS is not a supranational court. It cannot override or amend national laws and is, in any case, not subject to provisional application. I urge all Committee members to support the original motion proposed by the Government.
Greg Hands
No, I will not. It was not possible to schedule a debate ahead of the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council trade meeting on 18 October. It was strongly in the interests of the UK to signal political agreement at that Council. We worked hard to secure this debate—in advance, crucially, of the vote on CETA in the European Parliament on 15 February. Owing to the pressures of the legislative timetable, it has not been possible to have this debate in the main Chamber of the House, for reasons that are clear if Members look at the Annunciator.
I am pleased that we have had this opportunity to debate this important matter within the appropriate timetable. I urge the Committee to vote against the amendment. The Government are strongly committed to engaging further with Parliament as we move towards ratification of the agreement on a timely basis. I commend the Government’s motion to the Committee, and urge Members to support the motion and oppose the amendment.
Amendment proposed: line 10, leave out from “part;” to end and insert
“welcomes the prospect of enhanced trading relations between the United Kingdom and Canada; is disappointed that the Government has so far failed to provide a full debate on the floor of the House as recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee; notes that this is a mixed agreement which must be laid before Parliament for at least 21 sitting days, without the House having resolved that it should not be ratified, before the United Kingdom can ratify it; and believes that the Government should provide an opportunity for the House to come to a decision on this issue following a full debate on the floor of the House in advance of ratification.”—(Geraint Davies.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 10 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
Domestic Ivory Market
(7 years, 10 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
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 165905 relating to the domestic ivory market in the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. This petition has attracted more than 107,000 signatures and is very clear in its aim. This is the second time that this matter has been debated in the House in the past two months, following a debate in this place on 8 December.
I pay tribute to the work of Tusk, the World Wildlife Fund, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and other organisations for highlighting the threat to elephants and other endangered species. I also pay tribute to the work of Lord Hague and the many other right hon. and hon. Members for whom this matter is of great concern, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), who has spoken regularly about it in the House. I will leave most of the detail to her. I want to be clear that the debate is about the UK’s commercial ivory trade. It is not about stopping people owning ivory, inheriting family heirlooms or donating to museums. It is about how we play our full part in increasing global efforts to halt poaching.
The survival of elephants is threatened across Africa. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has estimated that only 415,000 African elephants remain. The savannah elephant population declined by 30% between 2007 and 2014, largely due to poaching. Between 2010 and 2012, 30,000 African elephants a year were being slaughtered for their tusks. The rate of poaching has since declined, although that is partly due to the fact that it is now harder to find large groups of elephants to kill. However, the Great Elephant Census has revealed the current rate of decline is still around 8% a year, which is far higher than could ever be considered sustainable.
The UK currently has one of the largest domestic ivory markets, which contributes directly to illegal trade, providing the opportunity for illegal ivory to be laundered. TRAFFIC has stated that the UK’s role in illegal ivory is in particular as a transit country. Examples in the last year alone can be cited. Christie’s was fined more than £3,000 in 2016 for selling a piece of ivory without the relevant documentation, and in November 2016 an individual based in the UK was prosecuted for selling 78 ivory items valued at almost £6,500.
The Government’s consultation announced in September on banning the sale of modern-day ivory—that is, dated after 1947—is welcome. It follows leadership by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister. However, there are a number of reasons why we should go further.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Given the intensity of the crisis that the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies, are we not in danger, as in so many other areas, of paralysis by process? Should the consultation be brought to a close, and should we now take action?
Luke Hall
I will come to my thoughts on the steps the Government should take later in my remarks.
There are a number of reasons why we should go further. First, the proposal will not cover worked ivory dated before 1947, which makes up the vast majority of the current UK ivory market. Secondly, it is difficult for our law enforcement officers to tell the difference between pre and post-1947 ivory, especially as newer ivory is frequently and deliberately disguised as antique. Thirdly, it is unclear how all ivory could be age tested.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Although the hon. Gentleman is confining his remarks to the UK market, there are bigger markets outside the UK. We need international action, because countries such as China import a lot of ivory. If we are going to save elephants, we cannot confine the problem to one country.
Luke Hall
I will talk later about the action that countries around the world are currently taking and looking to take in the years ahead.
As I was saying, it is unclear how all ivory could be age tested. Radiocarbon dating every piece of ivory would be hugely expensive and significantly increase the cost of the licensing regime. International momentum for action is also building. In December last year, China announced a timetable for closing its domestic ivory trade.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, I am a fellow member of the Petitions Committee and welcome the opportunity to debate this subject. We spend an awful lot of time discussing as an international community how we can deal with the challenge of climate change, which seems somewhat intractable. Does he agree that this is a much simpler problem, and that we could get on and save great species such as the elephant and the tiger?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter forwards from the Petitions Committee. If we are determined to stop the ivory trade, we have to stop the demand. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) referred to China. China blatantly disregards world opinion. It pays lip service to stopping the ivory trade, but the trade continues. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that it is time for our Government to step up to the mark and persuade, and perhaps even elbow, China to stop the ivory trade in its totality? That is where the problem is: China says one thing and pays lip service, and does something different.
Luke Hall
As I have said, I welcome the Government’s leadership. Other countries around the world are also taking action. Hong Kong has confirmed that it will totally ban all ivory sales within five years. In August last year, France proposed further restrictions on its domestic market. India has implemented a near-total ban. The US introduced a near-total ban on all ivory sales at a federal level in July 2016, and 80% of African elephant range countries support the closure of domestic ivory markets.
It is clear that the public support further action, as is demonstrated by more than 107,000 people—2,000 just over the weekend—signing the petition and therefore triggering the debate, which is the second on this subject in two months. Further research carried out by TNS in September 2016 found that 85% of the public think that buying and selling ivory in the UK should be banned.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
It has been suggested by some of those who are against a ban that a certification system could be introduced, whereby pieces of ivory to be sold in the United Kingdom market would have to carry a certificate indicating that they were pre-1947. The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that radiocarbon dating is very expensive. I am not an expert. Can he give an indication of how much it would cost per piece?
Luke Hall
I cannot give an exact indication, but the point I was trying to make is that radiocarbon dating every piece of ivory would be hugely time-consuming and cumbersome. I will say what more I think the Government can do on this important matter later.
The Government’s response to the online petition stated that the consultation would be a
“step towards a total ban.”
That is welcome, but I urge them to take a bigger step by widening the remit of their forthcoming consultation to cover all possible scenarios, including a total ban on the domestic trade in ivory, while considering international examples that include tightly-defined exemptions for items such as musical instruments and items with very small amounts of ivory. That would allow the ban to be practical and enforceable. Parallel measures can also be taken, such as supporting foreign Governments to protect elephants and supporting education around the world.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate the Petitions Committee on picking this topic for debate. The hon. Gentleman talks about what we can do in foreign countries. It is very important that when we give aid to countries, specific conditions should be attached, including on animal welfare. The massacre of the elephant population is the core and root of the problem.
Luke Hall
I completely agree and I am sure the Minister heard the hon. Gentleman’s point. As I said, practical measures can be taken, such as supporting education around the world to ensure that the scale of the problem is understood.
During the course of the debate, somewhere between seven and 10 elephants will be killed. They will most likely be shot and then dismembered to extract the maximum value for poachers. The Secretary of State’s announcement in September was extremely welcome, but I urge the Government to honour our commitment, ensuring we play our part in protecting one of the world’s most iconic species.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I shall be brief, as ever, Mr Brady. Having spoken comprehensively to my satisfaction and, I hope, to the satisfaction of others in the debate in December 2016, I thank all those who signed the petition for this debate. It is democracy in practice, and the longer the petition had been out there, the more signatures it would have accrued, because there is a feeling in the country and increasing recognition that we are throwing away our future.
I pointed out in the debate in December that this is about my grandson’s future, and I can now say happily that it is about both my grandsons’ futures. It is not trite to say that. What are we bequeathing them? Of all the many issues in front of Parliament today and on other days, if we are incapable of fulfilling our role to protect for continuing generations the species that freely roam this planet alongside us, we have no role as politicians.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new grandchild. He referred to a previous debate in December, when I and other hon. Members here today pointed out that an elephant is killed nearly every 15 minutes, so since that debate, more than 5,000 more elephants might have been killed. Does he agree that time is of the essence?
John Mann
Time is running out for elephants, lions, tigers, snow leopards and many of the other great species. I remember what I did as a kid, so I go out and buy my grandchildren little plastic animals, ready for when they come and visit. Zoos are not what they were in olden days; they are open plains where animals can play and we can move around among them, which is great. I do not want to have to explain, “I’ve seen this animal in the wild, but you’re not going to see it,” because we, the human race, have got rid of it, through our stupidity, greed and political inaction.
In 2003, in a much less crowded environment—the message is certainly getting out to the new generation of politicians elected to the House—I successfully introduced an amendment to make trade in endangered species an imprisonable offence for the first time. We went through the issues and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) sat alongside me on the all-party group and made up the numbers to pursue the issue. It was a bit of a curiosity for many people at the time, but it seemed important and it got through unanimously. We were at crisis point then, but Parliament did not realise it.
The petitioners can see from the number of people present today—more than 30 Members of Parliament, from different generations, are here on both sides of the Chamber—that Parliament is starting to understand the issue. We need effective action from us and, through us, from the Government. I hope the Minister will be more precise than when she responded to the previous debate about what our Government will do. Will we be trailing behind the Communist party in the People’s Republic of China? I trust not. I trust that this nation will be the world leader. It is our responsibility. We should not be waiting on any other nation. The fact that parties from every part of the House are represented here demonstrates how the Government’s actions will be applauded and supported.
Jim Shannon
That support comes from all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman referred to interaction with his grandchildren and to where animals roam on the plains. Does he believe that legislative action in the House must include help for countries that have elephants, hippopotamuses and so on to ensure that they have rangers and helicopters and everything necessary to make sure that those animals can roam and live freely?
John Mann
Those countries desperately need our support. With my mountaineering hat on, I recall climbing Mount Kilimanjaro in August 2016 through what was, 20 years ago, the wild route. It was wild because there were elephants and animals more dangerous than elephants prowling on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro. In particular, there were a significant number of elephants in the forest and up on the Shira plateau, but they are not there now. Guides who were with me could recall during their guiding lifetime how many they had seen as adults, never mind as children. That demonstrated vividly to me the crisis in one small part of the world in Tanzania.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I cannot believe that any wild animal would dare to take on the hon. Gentleman.
John Mann
If I were a Minister, I would ban the lot and stop any trade in or movement of ivory. The survival of the elephant is far more important than a museum, however great it and the curators of the modern age may be, however wise, experienced and brilliant they may be and however great their genius. That is nothing compared with the survival of elephants. It is about time we were bold and said that there should be no half-measures, mixed messages, little promises or small steps forwards. A total ban is what I want.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most dangerous of all animals is the Chinese consumer? Nearly all the animals in the list he mentioned are used in Chinese medicine. Piano makers and people who use antique ivory are not contributing to the problem today. We need to tackle what is happening today.
John Mann
The problem today was manifested differently yesterday, and people today will have the same ignorance that people had yesterday—all of us, and I exclude no one, including me—in our past thinking, which is why we need to be brave in our decision making. More importantly, we need foresight in thinking through what we are bequeathing the planet. As things are going, there will be no elephants or many of the other great species.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
When I first went to the Kruger national park about 12 years ago, I saw a herd of 52 elephants, including the big matriarch to tiny newborns. I am told that people now do not see herds; they see one or two animals. That is the problem we are facing and we cannot afford to wait. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
John Mann
The reality is that in some countries where we have the wonderful opportunity to visit, someone going out into the bush is as likely to see a carcase as a live elephant. That is the reality in all too many parts of the world.
I will finish on that point because many hon. Members want to speak and my previous remarks are in Hansard, not least my calls that everything the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do should have endangered species, not least elephants, as a key part of the leverage in all our foreign relations and aid. As well as stopping any trade in this country, we should lead the world. It is our duty to do so and I look forward to hearing from other hon. Members.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), who serves on the Petitions Committee and introduced the debate. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is passionate about this issue.
It was my birthday a couple of days ago, and although I somewhat dreaded adding yet another year to a number that is already a very respectable cricket score for a batsman, I consoled myself by considering one of the great delights that growing older brings, to which the hon. Gentleman will attest. He has two grandchildren. I am fortunate enough to have five and, on my birthday, I was thinking, as I often do, about my grandchildren, but unfortunately that consideration, so often a source of joy, led me in this instance to distress. I wondered whether all my grandchildren would ever get to see a genuine elephant and, of course, all the other endangered species that have been mentioned. It is an easy and well-worn trick of rhetoric to make such a statement, but on this occasion I really do not think that it is unfounded. Nor is it an unshared concern, because Prince William stated in September 2016 that he fears that Prince George and Princess Charlotte will grow up in a world without elephants—and they are older than my youngest two grandchildren.
In the same month, the International Union for Conservation of Nature stated that Africa’s overall elephant population had seen the worst decline in 25 years, due to poaching. Savannah elephant populations are declining at an estimated 8% a year. Facts and figures applied with cool logic often alleviate my more irrational fears, but in this case they serve only to heighten them. Stark reality makes me more, not less, fearful of elephant extinction and the consequences of that for our world and the people inhabiting it, my grandchildren included.
Since I last spoke in a debate on this issue, which was in this Chamber on 8 December, a minimum of 3,355 elephants have been killed, and that is a conservative estimate; the number could be well over 5,500. Each day, as often as every 15 minutes according to some sources, another elephant is killed, another poacher strikes for greed and gain, another criminal syndicate profits from a corrupt practice, another country sees its rule of law undermined, another ecosystem is degraded and another species comes a step closer to extinction. Between today’s debate and 31 March—I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us when the consultation will start and finish, but let us go to 31 March—another 4,800 elephants will die.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady join me in trying to nail the argument that this is just about killing animals for the Chinese medicine trade? The police in this country have seized ivory that has been antiqued to make it look as if it is older—pre the 1947 deadline. This is not just about the Chinese market.
Pauline Latham
Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady, and in fact how can an ordinary policeman, who has many other duties, tell the difference between pre and post-1947 ivory? That is just not possible.
For many years, Britain was at the forefront of the battle to fight these appalling injustices, taking centre stage on the issue of combating the illegal wildlife trade within the global community. Many Britons have done exceptional, commendable work on the issue, particularly Lord Hague and Prince William. Sadly, though, the UK is no longer at the front of the race, and I do not understand why. At the end of last year, China confirmed its timetable to close its domestic ivory market by the end of 2017. That—[Interruption.] It is indeed too late, but it is better than nothing; we are not doing it. That was a truly monumental step, given that that country has always been one of the largest ivory markets. Hong Kong, a major ivory retail market and a key transit point into mainland China, has confirmed that it will totally ban all ivory sales within five years. Last August, France announced that it would bring forward new legislation for further restrictions on the sale of ivory. Why is Britain not leading; why are we not even following suit?
We should introduce a near-complete ban on the trade of ivory products in the UK. The only exceptions allowed would be out of practicality or for works of genuine artistic value—I am talking about certain works of art ratified by independent art experts, such as the Victoria and Albert Museum. There is a global consensus that domestic ivory markets contribute to the illegal wildlife trade and the poaching of elephants and therefore must be closed, and closed immediately. Admirably, the Government have agreed on a consultation to address these issues—a step that I applaud—but why is it not coming far sooner? As I hope I have proved, every day makes a major difference for elephant populations.
With the illegal wildlife trade conference coming up in London in 2018, the gaze of the international community will be firmly upon us with regard to this issue again. We need to ensure that we can make this conference as successful as the 2014 one was: we need to take action and prove to the globe that we are willing to lead on this issue once again.
It must be stressed that a move to bring in a ban not only is supported by swathes of non-governmental organisations and wildlife charities, but has been promised in the last two Conservative manifestos and championed by the public at large—we have promised to do that. When surveyed, 85% of people believe that it has already happened and ivory trading is illegal.
I am here speaking in the debate only because more than 107,000 people have signed the petition calling for the closure of the ivory market in the UK. As of yesterday, 265 of those people come from my constituency of Mid Derbyshire. I must point out to the Minister, who is representing the Government on this issue today, that the petition was also signed by 228 residents of her own constituency of Suffolk Coastal. I am sure that she will want to ensure that their views are addressed today. Those of us here are speaking not just to one another, but to the thousands of people who have expressed their concern and demanded that a ban be introduced. I am sure that many of us in the Chamber have different opinions on Brexit. Probably the only thing that we can all agree on is that a major element of the decision came from a real frustration at not being listened to—the feeling that politicians do not hear and, even if they do, they do not change anything. Let us show today that we are listening to what people want and that we are willing to make a change.
Bringing about a ban will do three major things: it will stop the poaching, trafficking and buying of ivory—obviously, it will not do that totally, but it will help in that fight. Those elements are closely interdependent: criminals traffic ivory only because they can make money from it, and people can buy ivory only because it has been trafficked in the first place. Therefore, the ways in which those three elements are addressed must be considered in a coherent fashion.
Elephant poaching is a heinous crime. It not only entails the brutal killing of magnificent animals, but threatens the lives of rangers. I said previously that about 1,000 wildlife officers attempting to protect elephants have been killed in the past decade by poachers. That statistic proves that there is a human, as well as an animal, cost to poaching, but I have to say in this instance that, sad though that is, it is elephants, not human beings, that face extinction.
The UK is not the largest ivory market, but the market here is by no means insignificant, with between 500 and 1,000 pieces being sold every week. Some of those who oppose introducing a near-total ban on ivory claim that there is no evidence that antique ivory is related to elephant killings today. In reality, there exists an international desire for ivory products, and the continued trade in ivory in the UK fuels global demand. There is a wealth of evidence to support that. In 2015, there were 182 seizures of ivory, totalling 250 kg, by UK Border Force. Moreover, we know that criminals will go to great lengths to disguise new ivory as antique. In his BBC documentary, “Saving Africa’s Elephants: Hugh and the Ivory War”, campaigner Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall revealed the efforts that criminals make to disguise freshly carved ivory as older pieces. He selected several items that were promoted as antiques in online auctions across the country and through carbon dating demonstrated that six of the nine pieces were actually illegal.
Rob Marris
The hon. Lady has just adduced a very interesting and helpful piece of evidence. She referred to carbon dating—that is how Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall found those six ringers. Can she give us an indication of how much it would cost to carbon date each piece, to put into context whether it would be better to produce a certificated system?
Pauline Latham
I have no idea; I have never even thought about having anything carbon dated. However, the cost is not what matters. What matters is having something independently certified to prove that it is old and not new. We cannot expect the police or Border Force people to understand and to be able to look at a piece and say, “That’s post-1947 and that’s pre-1947.” It is just not possible.
Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)
May I draw attention to what my hon. Friend said earlier? She actually said clearly—I absolutely agreed with her as, I am sure, many did—that genuine experts can tell the difference between genuine works of art. As others in this room have said, the market in the far east is for shiny, modern, contemporary pieces. That is entirely different from the antique ivory sold by our dealers and exhibited in our museums here. To quote my hon. Friend, genuine experts can easily see the difference.
Pauline Latham
I am sure they can and I hope that we will have a system where a piece has to go to a genuine expert before it can be traded and moved out of this country.
It is clear that the sale of antique ivory in the UK provides a false veneer of legality for black markets across the world, because most people cannot tell the difference. Owing to the fact that 31% of ivory exported from the EU comes from the UK, Britain is unfortunately an unwilling but major culprit in the illegal trade and, as such, the killing of elephants. Even those who profit from ivory trading admit that current legislation does not go far enough. Auctioneer James Lewis from Derbyshire, who is in the Public Gallery, admitted that the antiques market contributes to the illegal ivory trade by arguing:
“I've been to Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland and I have seen antique ivory on the shelf next to brand new ivory. It is without doubt the case that profits from old ivory are being invested in modern ivory.”
Introducing the ban will deter those trying to traffic ivory, as the stricter legislation will deprive them of the opportunity to disguise new ivory as old. If nothing can be sold, nothing can be hidden.
The arbitrary nature of the 1947 cut-off date dividing antique and non-antique ivory should also be addressed. There seems to be no real reason for why that date is the dividing line when the rule of thumb, I believe, is that an antique must be at least 100 years old. Just extending the cut-off point might make it harder for criminals, as they would have to go to greater lengths to disguise new ivory as old. I believe that a cut-off date of 1900 should be used, because that is a nice clear date for everybody.
Until we bring in a near-total ban I fear that criminals will find a way to pretend that illegal pieces are legal, however hard it might be, just because of the sheer scale and lucrativeness of the activity. The illegal wildlife trade is considered the fourth most profitable international crime after drugs, arms and human trafficking—we do not approve of any of those, but we seem to think that ivory is okay—and is worth between $15 billion and $20 billion annually. Ivory makes up a significant proportion of that market. It is estimated that every year approximately 200 to 300 tonnes of illegal ivory enter the global market. If we introduced this ban, we could change consumer demand as well as customer behaviour. A lower supply of ivory, which the ban would effect, would restrict the amount that could be bought. More widely, the ban would act as a strong symbol that trading illegal ivory is a crime and one that Britain will absolutely not condone. No member of the public will be against this ban. No one can condone the slaughter of yet more elephants.
I have heard arguments against putting a ban in place on economic grounds and because of the impact on business across the UK. To that, I say two things. First, the economic impact would be slight. Antiques dealers sell a variety of pieces and the amount of genuine antique ivory being sold in proportion to other works is relatively minor. Secondly, and more importantly, I want to stress that the real reason for bringing in this ban is not economic, but moral. When did we argue about extending legislation on zero-hours contracts or—an even more dramatic example—abolishing child labour or sending children up chimneys? Those decisions might have had a negative economic impact on certain businesses, but they were still right. We have an opportunity today to help put in place a ban that will save the lives of truly remarkable animals and prevent there being more bloody corpses. I do not pretend that this ban will solve the issue entirely—it is a global problem—but no significant problem was ever fixed with one decision.
Kerry McCarthy
Does the hon. Lady agree that we have a particular role to play in taking the lead in banning this trade because we were the trading nation that reached out to all parts of the world and encouraged this trade in the first place?
Pauline Latham
I agree and this debate shows that this is a truly cross-party issue. This is not about politics, but about saving elephants and we do have to take that lead.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I accept that banning the domestic trade of antiques in the UK may make some difference at the margin, but does my hon. Friend agree that this must not distract us from the most pressing concern of all—the devastating poaching in Africa? Should we not use our foreign aid to help African Governments to protect wildlife as well as alleviate human suffering?
Pauline Latham
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. From sitting on the Select Committee on International Development, I would like to see more money put into Africa. After all, if it loses all its elephants and other endangered species, will it have a tourist trade anymore? It will not. This is important to give other countries a business they can capitalise on so that people can have a lot of fun going and seeing the animals in the wild. I have done that several times and I have taken my eldest granddaughter; she has actually seen elephants in the wild, although the others may not.
It takes only one step, smaller than the stride of an elephant, to make a difference. Since Roman times, humans have reduced Africa’s elephant population by perhaps 99%. We have a chance to protect that final, precious 1% today and I urge the Minister to seize it. We humans may not have the memory of an elephant, but the world will remember if we do not.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on introducing the debate today and all those who signed the petition, and on the passion behind it, particularly from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann).
I am here to speak because I want the ivory ban in place, but I want us to recognise the importance of the antiques trade in this country. In everything we do, we must always find the right balance. It is absolutely right that we ban ivory—I think the phrase used earlier was “a near-complete ban”—and do so as quickly as possible, but we must also recognise ivory’s place in our history and tourism.
I was in Kenya many years ago—it would be terrific to show everyone the wonders of the wildlife there. I remember watching a film of the farmers annihilating some 150 elephants because they kept breaking out of a game park and eating the maize crops. That is the main problem. We should aid those countries so that they can have proper game parks, secure rangers and economies that work. That is where we should concentrate a lot of our effort. The ban would do a little bit to help, but we must recognise that it is just a tiny bit, and that we must do much more work through our aid and world trade.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman concede that people are at the heart of saving the elephant? Work by organisations such as the Northern Rangelands Trust in Kenya has done an enormous amount to make local people understand the value of wildlife. Directing aid and support for communities through that prism is the best possible way to get people and wildlife to live together.
Danny Kinahan
I could not have made a better point. We have to educate everyone in the world, and particularly the Chinese, as many have said today. It is also about showing the Africans the benefit and hoping that tourism, wildlife and everything else helps their countries into the future.
The antiques trade here is worth some £13 billion. I do not want to counter the argument for an ivory ban, but I shall give some facts and figures to make us think more about what a total ban would do. One document I was reading said that up to 2025 tourism will be worth £257 billion to the UK—10% of our GDP—and will be responsible for 3.8 million jobs. Tourists visit some 5,000 to 6,000 venues in the UK that have small and sometimes large antique ivory pieces.
We have to be very careful how we tackle the antiques trade. One or two hon. Members have criticised the existing cut-off date of 1947. The convention on international trade in endangered species guidelines are accepted in the trade, including by the people who know best about dates and times. It is better to go down that route than to try and work on carbon dating. Changing the date to 1900 may seem logical, but that takes out the two of the greatest periods in art—art nouveau and art deco.
Pauline Latham
When I talked about changing the date to 1900, I was not talking about banning every transaction. All the genuine art deco pieces would be included, provided that they have been verified by somebody independent. That is not the problem. I just want a very clear date that everybody understands.
Danny Kinahan
Having a very clear date is absolutely right. I point out only that a date of 1900 means that we miss out on two of our greatest art movements, so we should keep that in mind. Coming from the other side, I want to see an ivory ban, but I want to see the trade being protected in the right way.
Rob Marris
I am not an expert in these things, but because of the horrors of the atomic bombs in Japan, 1947 does not seem to be a bad date for carbon dating. The hon. Gentleman just said that he does not particularly favour a carbon dating approach. He is much more of an expert than me, so can he indicate how much it would cost to carbon date each piece?
Danny Kinahan
My answer is no—I have never been involved in the carbon dating side of things. I have been involved in working out the provenance and the date so that we have the complete history of where something came from, and the value, but I have never been involved in carbon dating and have no idea how much it costs.
We have watched ISIS destroying Palmyra and the Taliban destroy the two fantastic Buddha statues in Bamiyan. If we had a blanket ban, we would be a little bit on the same page, in that we would be trying to get rid of some of the most beautiful items. If ivory were banned, it would not be looked after because it would be worthless. I have seen that happen with a most beautiful Edwardian shotgun stick. It was made illegal—it was banned—and was left in the local police station. It had to be cut into pieces, even though it was one of the most beautiful pieces I have seen—it had a little gold top and a lion’s head and everything on it. Are we really trying to go down that route?
Pauline Latham
May I challenge what the hon. Gentleman is saying? He suggests we would lose all those pieces, but we will not lose anything. They will still exist, and if they can be verified, they can be traded. I am not saying, “Ban all trade.” I am talking about a near-complete ban, so that all the new stuff—all the trinkets—are not traded. We have to have a near-complete ban.
Danny Kinahan
I agree entirely. It is not about a total ban, but a near-complete ban. I am not criticising the hon. Lady for what she said. I just make the point that we need to look after such stunningly beautiful items. If there is a ban, in time more of the items will not be looked after, and eventually there will be none. Similarly, if we do not look after elephants and tigers, there will be none. At the moment, the situation is leaning towards the animals being lost, so we have to find the right balance.
Let me run through some things that have ivory in them. We all know about antique pianos and musical instruments—often, the pieces on violins that people turn to fit and change strings are often ivory, and 95% of our brass and wind instruments contain ivory. Even the bagpipes I was looking at the other day had ivory fittings. Some 80% of all chess sets contain ivory. One of our greatest exhibits is probably the Lewis chessmen, which are made out of mammoth tusk. Those would be banned. We have to work a way through. What we must stop happening is people copying them and then trying to sell them today.
Portrait miniatures from the 18th and 19th centuries were painted on a thin sliver of ivory, and we particularly need to look after those. People carried those portraits with them when they were travelling the world. They are little bits of history—whether we are talking about Nelson, the Duke of Wellington or Robbie Burns. Those little gems of painting would not be looked after, so we have to make sure that we do. On the other hand, there is the Chinese and oriental trade, with some stunning antique pieces, yet at the same time, we have the problem of those being copied and of other things being made today. That is what we have to stop. We have people here in the trade and in our museums who can advise us. I hope the Minister will set up a committee that can give certificates, set the rules, and advise and be dynamic in how we operate the near-ban.
No. 4 in the book, “A History of the World in 100 Objects” is the swimming reindeer, from 11,000 BC. It is made of ivory, as are No. 11, King Den’s sandal label from 2,980 BC, and No. 61, the Lewis chessmen, which I have mentioned. They are very much part of our history.
Mr Vaizey
I do not want to turn this into a pub quiz, but HMS Beagle’s chronometer—object No. 91—has ivory in it. In fact, the British Museum has 13,000 objects that are made of ivory. We have to reach a consensus, which I think is breaking out, that antiques should be exempt from any ban.
Danny Kinahan
I could not have taken a more helpful intervention. That is exactly what I was leading to. The British Museum, which loans pieces worldwide and looks after the items that are the whole world’s history and artefacts, has bought, paid for and kept parts of collections from Iran and Iraq. It gathers in objects from around the world. Think of our museums, galleries and great houses everywhere. The ivory trade is in there in part. Yes, it may be ghastly and awful that that is what people did in the past, but we have to find the balance.
Danny Kinahan
How appalling would that be? Yes, I agree with that little point, but on the whole we must recognise everyone’s history and work together to keep all forms of history.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I cannot compete with shrunken heads. Contrary to some hon. Members’ views, the Chinese have announced a ban on ivory for March 2017. Beijing says that ivory trading and processing, other than auctions of legitimately sourced antiques, will be outlawed, so they have come up with a plan to save their antiques. Does the hon. Gentleman have a view on that? We might learn some lessons.
Danny Kinahan
I rather hope we come up with a plan that is as good if not better. I welcome the fact that the Chinese have accepted the ban, but as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, we need to ensure that they actually do it and put the rules and regulations in place to stop the misuse of ivory. Having worked for Christie’s for 18 years, valuing contents in people’s houses and helping to sell them, I have seen stunningly beautiful items that need to be looked after and allowed to be traded. I have also seen the modern stuff coming from Africa that proves that we need to have the near-ban.
I should like to make one final point. I have a very strange exam pass: an O-level in east African history, which is a whole other story. It was a very short O-level, because east Africa’s history is very short—it has only been written up for 200 years, because people passed on their history by word of mouth. For them, the few key items from the past that are made of ivory are their history. As time goes on and the stories are lost, items such as the Benin heads and Benin ivories in the British Museum are key to understanding the Africans and celebrating their history.
We need a near-ban. Let us do it quickly, but let us do it right and ensure that we protect everyone’s history and everyone’s culture. That is the right way forward.
Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady; I am sorry that my voice today is not quite as strong as it might be. I declare an interest: I am president of the British Antique Dealers Association and I have been advised by the British Art Market Federation, the Antiquities Dealers Association and LAPADA, which comprise a group of Britain’s most knowledgeable and highly regarded auction houses and specialist dealers in fine art, decorative arts and antiques.
The fact that a second ivory debate has been triggered by a petition to Parliament demonstrates the strength of feeling among the public about the plight of elephants. I therefore really hope that we can clear up these misunderstandings about ivory and about antiques. For the record, I must emphasise that the British antiques trade deplores the trade in poached ivory. The most important point that I need to make is that the antiques trade does not support the killing of elephants, nor does it support any system that allows raw ivory from post-1947 sources to be traded. Every hon. Member present agrees that we must look to our future, for our children and our grandchildren, but we must not throw away our past. We all welcome the proposals from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to remove from sale all ivory items that are less than 70 years old. Antiques collectors have no interest in items made from modern or poached ivory. We all welcome tougher measures to stop the sale of tourist trinkets made in recent decades.
This is, understandably, an emotive topic, so it is crucial to be factually correct. The e-petition claims:
“From 2009 to 2014, 40% of UK customs seizures were ivory”.
That is not correct. For example, the Border Force typically makes 500 drug seizures a month. Cases of ivory seizure represent less than 1% of all seizures. The British Antique Dealers Association’s understanding is that the Border Force does not regard the UK as the final destination for poached ivory. Most seizures are of one or two small carved items, often old objects that lack the necessary paperwork. A smaller number of seizures are of tusks and freshly carved trinkets that have arrived here in transit, destined for other countries, and I concur with my hon. Friends that that is something that we need to stamp out.
Last year’s TRAFFIC report, backed by the World Wildlife Fund, on the antique ivory trade in Britain concluded:
“Links with the current elephant poaching crisis appear tenuous at best, as researchers found no new or raw (unworked) ivory for sale, and only one item that was reportedly after the 1947 cut-off date for antique ivory.”
We all know that the largest market for ivory as a material is in the far east, as other Members have said this afternoon. Buyers there have no interest in most historical objects on sale in the UK; they desire ivory in any form and prefer it shiny and modern. Other EU countries must therefore stop exporting whole tusks to China. As has been mentioned, the Chinese Government’s announcements of further restrictions are very welcome, but they have to happen and they have to be enforced. They cannot come soon enough. It is in the far east that we must galvanise our resources. We should stop confusing ourselves on the topic by looking at our own medieval treasures in our museums, churches, homes and antique dealers. We must protect our history.
Rob Marris
The hon. Lady has connections with the antique trade, as she has declared. Can she answer the question that I keep asking, which is whether the antique trade would support some kind of certification system? There is already some paperwork—she spoke about paperwork on seizures and so on. Can she also tell me how much it costs to radiocarbon date a piece of ivory?
Victoria Borwick
Certainly. I can answer both questions. There are many parts of the art and antiques dealers’ trade for which we keep catalogues, make certifications and work among trade associations and specialists to keep certificates, records and suchlike. I have absolutely no doubt that when the Minister sets out her suggestions on a committee or a way of taking things forward, the trade will willingly look at ideas about the certification of finer objects with photographs and detailed descriptions of provenance, size and so forth, so that they can be properly catalogued.
With carbon dating, a very tiny item can be destroyed if too much is drilled out, which is why everyone is so reluctant to do it. However, as other Members have said, it is usually easy to tell. The usual cost is a few hundred pounds, but it very much depends on the complexity of the object. With early Chinese and other works of art that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years, there is always a lot of unhappiness about drilling out the left foot, because it inevitably spoils the item. I am sorry if that was a rather longer answer than the hon. Gentleman wished for.
Pauline Latham
I have actually just been emailed that it costs roughly £1,000. The email cites a case in which a Cumbrian ivory trader was prosecuted and the court ordered him to pay more than £1,000 as the cost of radiocarbon dating.
Mr Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Order. Before Victoria Borwick responds, I have to say that although it is in order for Members to refer to notes on electronic devices, reading emails that have just been received is to be deprecated.
Victoria Borwick
I think the cost of radiocarbon dating depends on the complexity of the testing required, but I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) for her clarification.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service recognises that antique ivory is a special case that warrants exemptions. People say, “What lessons are we learning from the rest of the world?” Well, in America, although some imports are restricted, federal rules allow trade in legally obtained antique ivory.
Richard Benyon
Does not my hon. Friend think it a pity that in this country we are not being consulted on the American system, which I understand uses a rolling 100-year rule? This year, it has moved from 1916 to 1917. We have not been able to hear the antique trade’s view, or anyone else’s, on a 100-year ban. Personally, I would like it to be longer, but there must be a way forward without all this complication. We could register these works of art and then move on with a proper ban that would be respected round the world.
Victoria Borwick
That is absolutely the sort of discussion that I know the trade is very willing to hold. I am sure that such a discussion would represent the interests of many hon. Members present and would be a good way of discussing a way forward.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that old ivory items do not threaten today’s wild elephants, so the point is accepted elsewhere. No one has demonstrated that the UK antiques market contributes to poaching today.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I wonder whether the hon. Lady could help me out with something that she has said; indeed, it has been said a couple of times today. She has spoken of beautiful, historic ivory objects in churches and museums, and so on, that are part of our history and should be respected as such. Could she explain how the banning of ivory and the ivory trade threatens the beauty or the intrinsic historic value of these objects?
Victoria Borwick
Things have to have value in order to be kept, in order to be valued. Also, as the British Museum has said, these things are part of all our history. Nowadays, we are obviously very upset when people destroy other people’s history, and that is exactly the point. Things have to have a value. We have cherished our history, just because it shows our history to our children, our grandchildren—and even the grandchildren of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann)—which is why it is so important that we do keep our best.
John Mann
Does the hon. Lady have some evidence that this issue is not a problem? How would she explain the £3,250 fine on Christie’s in May last year, or the record 110 kg of ivory tusks that were found at terminal 4 in Heathrow airport in October 2015, which came from Angola and, like other such shipments, was headed eastwards via the United Kingdom? How would she explain those incidents if there was not a problem?
Victoria Borwick
First, as we all know, the Christie’s stuff is publicly known—Christie’s admits to making a mistake and paid up; that is a matter of public record. As has been said before with regard to the tusks, as we all know, they were in transit and that is what we have got to stop. Every Member in this Chamber, and I am sure that all those watching, would absolutely concur with the hon. Gentleman: we have got to stop the trade and the transit of tusks. There is no disagreement between us on that.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
If the hon. Lady is so enthusiastic about placing a value on everything, can she tell us the value of an elephant?
Victoria Borwick
Absolutely immeasurable—nobody is disputing that. However, the argument that I am making is that we cannot compare a wonderful live elephant, where the value of the tusk is to the elephant, with something that comes from several thousands of years ago. I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to compare apples with pears, and that is the point I am trying to make to him. He does not have to agree with me, but that is the point I am making: that the value of an elephant tusk is to an elephant. What I am talking about are objects that have been around for thousands of years and are now in our museums.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The hon. Lady has spoken about priceless antiques being part of our history. Surely the point of today’s debate is that we want elephants not to be part of our history but part of our future?
Victoria Borwick
Absolutely—I have no doubt about that at all. There is no dispute there; there is nobody in this Chamber or among those watching who would agree with killing elephants today. The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I am merely saying that, as others have said, when we come up with the new regulations, we must do so very carefully so that we do not destroy what history we do have.
On behalf of the museums I represent in my Kensington constituency, as well as many of the antique dealers, let me say that I genuinely believe—I paraphrase one of the other Members who has spoken—that items of cultural and artistic heritage should continue to be exempt from a trading ban. Our museums rely on, or work with, the trade, in order to continue to develop their own collections. The royal collections have continued to develop and build up their own collections, as was talked about earlier.
The British Museum has stated that restricting the ability of collectors to purchase important works of art would have a detrimental effect on public collections. The British Museum collection includes many significant objects made from ivory from many different cultural traditions, including objects from prehistory that are carved from mammoth ivory and the Lewis chessmen, which are made from walrus ivory. They are integral parts of the museum’s collection and play an indispensable part of its presentation of the history of human cultural achievement.
On this most propitious of days, the Queen’s sapphire jubilee, Members will be familiar with portrait miniatures, which were referred to earlier. These are painted on ivory, as they are viewed as having long-lasting and special properties. We should not be thinking about destroying or not treasuring these things.
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend has twice used the word “destroy”. Who is going to destroy any ivory? As far as I am concerned, that is not part of the Government’s consultation. I do not think that it is the policy of any Member on any side of this argument, if there are different sides of this argument. Nothing will be destroyed; all those pieces of artwork will still exist. What we are talking about is not encouraging ivory to be poached and elephants to be killed because there is a market in ivory today.
Victoria Borwick
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; nobody wants to destroy anything. I was just getting a bit nervous because of some of the talk earlier, so I stand corrected. I am delighted that everything is going to be saved.
As many Members have already done, I could list examples of how ivory has been used down the centuries. The British Art Market Federation has made copies of its reference document available, and I know that one has been placed in the Commons Library.
To conclude, we must stop the current trading in raw and poached ivory, but that is not the same as trading in antique cultural artefacts. To stop that would be like suggesting that the current threats to whales should prevent the sale of scrimshaw and corset bones in the costume collections in our museums. We must separate modern poaching—I am speaking about the importance of our historical objects, in our constituents’ homes, in our local antique dealers and on display in our world-famous museums.
There is a huge interest in antiques in this country and there must be antique dealers in most Members’ constituencies. The craftsmanship of objects and their historical interest is foremost in the minds of buyers, not the materials used. Many of our constituents will have objects passing through their hands that incorporate ivory, whether little inlays on a desk, a miniature portrait or a tea caddy. A ban would mean that their lawfully acquired possessions would become unsaleable, and not a single elephant would necessarily be saved.
The antiques trade has made it clear that it welcomes the opportunity to share its knowledge by working closely with my hon. Friend the Minister to help to ensure that the proposed ban on the sale of post-1947 items is properly enforced. The trade has a number of ideas for cataloguing, certificating and working together to address the issues raised so forcefully this afternoon. I have no doubt that, working together with the antiques trade, we can ensure that Britain’s heritage is protected for future generations.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Brady.
I thank the Petitions Committee and also the public, for the 107,000 signatures. I am sure that members of the public will continue to sign this type of petition until the Government act. My constituents remind me every week of the importance of animal welfare and particularly the importance of preserving and conserving elephant populations. That is important to them, it is important to me and—as we have already heard today from a number of Members—it is important for future generations.
I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for opening this debate. It is an important and iconic debate at Westminster. I was pleased to speak in the debate last month and it is a privilege to speak again today, because in my mind preventing the ivory trade cannot be spoken about enough in Parliament until action is taken.
As we have heard, 415,000 African elephants remain, but in Mozambique and Tanzania, the decline in elephant populations has been as high as 48% and 60% respectively. As a result, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has concluded that
“Africa’s overall elephant population has seen the worst decline in 25 years, mainly due to poaching”
over the past 10 years. Some people in this House do not like experts, but we should listen to experts on this issue. Experts indicate that wild elephants could be extinct within as little as 20 years. My young children saw elephants for the first time last summer and I will never forget the amazement on their faces. They saw them moving around and saw the baby elephants with their mother, and they still speak of it today. Surely it is incumbent on us to ensure that that opportunity, that experience and that nature is there for future generations. We must preserve this iconic species.
Announcements from the United States and China point to the implementation of complete bans on the ivory trade in those countries. In addition, a number of other nations have implemented restrictions on the sale of ivory, including France and India in 2016, and Hong Kong, forthcoming, in 2021. Will the Minister join me in welcoming those moves, but also give assurances that the United Kingdom will follow suit, to maintain its prominence as a world leader in tackling the issue? It is very concerning that we are no longer at the forefront; sadly, we are lagging behind. Indeed, since the Conservative party’s pledge to press for a total ban on sales in both its 2010 and 2015 manifestos, more than 144,000 African elephants have been poached for their ivory. We seem to be dilly-dallying while the elephants are dying.
Rob Marris
I am genuinely on the fence on this. The hon. Lady prayed in aid of experts earlier. What expert evidence does she have that the total ban she seeks will lessen poaching considerably, or at all?
Dr Cameron
That excellent question is the crux of the matter, and it is something we need to pursue. In my mind, time is running out and we cannot allow that. We are dilly-dallying. If a near-total ban is not enough to preserve the elephant population, then it is not enough. Those experts are crucial to ensuring that the right decisions are made. The UK public need those decisions to be made and the Government need to follow them. The UK public support a ban on the ivory trade here, so a ban is not against public opinion. In fact, 85% of the public think that buying and selling ivory in the UK should be banned. We must consider the evidence. That is the crux and we must take it forward.
The other issue is sustainable livelihoods in Africa. The elephant brings much to the community and, as a member of the Select Committee on International Development, I am keen to see aid money going towards the conservation of elephant and rhino populations and helping the sustainable development of conservation in African countries.
Consultation takes time, and elephants and rhinoceroses do not have that time. If we want to preserve these species, do we have the time? We must take the lead. I wonder how many elephants have died in the month since I last spoke on the issue. It is so frustrating. If we cannot wait, the Government must act. The elephant cannot become the dodo of our generation under this Government. Is that the legacy this Government want?
The question is: is a near-total ban enough? We need that information. If it is not, then in my mind it is not good enough. It is incumbent on the Minister today not merely to respond, because time is running thin. We need to act. We need to act now, for our children, for their generations and for the human race, because they will forgive nothing less. We have heard today about chess sets, antiques, trinkets and all sorts of things in museums. Yes, we must find a place for those things and try to preserve them, but the crux of today’s argument is that elephants are priceless and we must act.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on landing the debate, and all those who signed the very significant petition, which has well over 100,000 signatures.
In five seconds’ time, we will have lost our fifth elephant while we have been speaking today. That is the horror of what is going on, and the House must get a grip of the enormity of what has happened. One hundred years ago, there were 10 million elephants. In 1979, the number was down to 1.3 million and, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, today we are down to 415,000. We lose 20,000 a year—that is one every 15 minutes. That was brought home to me dramatically when, as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I went to Lewa, a conservancy in north Kenya, in the autumn of 2013.
Picking up on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), there was the most brilliant example in Lewa of co-operation between the local landowners—the Craigs, who have been established in Kenya for a long time—and cattle farmers. Together, by establishing a conservancy where cattle raising and the protection of wildlife is encouraged, they have set up a virtuous circle. It is horrendous to go in a helicopter and smell a carcass from 200 feet and then get closer, turn off the engines and hear this weird, bubbling, buzzing sound of the boiling entrails, the stench and horror of the death of a young animal, which is completely pointless because the rangers have got there and taken the ivory. That brought home to me, however, that there was, potentially, a virtuous circle: local people can be got to value wildlife and prosper as cattle farmers. The most immediate impact of having proper rangers and a proper conservancy was that rangers were around and there was law and order. The centuries-long habit of cattle rustling and stealing therefore stopped. There was active talk of building an abattoir in the locality to encourage a long-term beef business. It can be done.
Two years ago, I went to the Kruger, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire mentioned, mainly to look at rhinoceroses. It was completely horrendous. I saw four carcasses in one weekend. There are the most enormous elephants there—that should be encouraging for my hon. Friend. Since it is so easy for poachers to come through the fence—the old security fence has lots of holes in it—it is much easier to take a rhinoceros horn, stick it in a backpack and get back over the border to Mozambique than it is to approach the elephants. We are losing a rhino every nine hours. We will run out of rhinos in what is their biggest population in the world. The poachers will then turn on the wonderful elephants, and we will run out of elephants.
I admire the fortitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) for coming here today, given the terrible operation she has just had, but I am afraid that I wholeheartedly disagree with her. She said that the value of an elephant is immeasurable. Of course it is. This is an absolutely iconic species. Lots of Members have talked about their children and grandchildren. We cannot compare a bit of ancient jewellery, which is not going to be destroyed, with a living animal that is. One every 15 minutes is killed. We will run out. Can everyone just get that into their heads?
I came back from that trip and met the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Hague of Richmond, who immediately took on board the significance. I also enlisted the support of the then Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), and we all sat down together, led by officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I pay tribute to Mr Jeremy Eppel, who has sadly left the Department. He led the negotiations with other Departments. He also led the huge task of putting together the biggest global wildlife conference that has ever been organised. Sadly I missed the conference because I was having an eye operation, but 42 countries turned up.
Before that, I had been in Moscow talking to the Russian Minister. Great things were being done there with the Chinese about the snow leopards on the border. The Minister gave me invaluable advice on how to work with the Chinese. I also talked to the Chinese Minister, who was keen to come to the conference to explain what China was doing on its elephant population and on conservation in its jungles. The conference was an extraordinary and hugely successful event and we had three generations of our royal family playing a critical role.
The conference came up with three absolutely key targets. One is the reduction of demand. The conference summary was absolutely clear. It said:
“The economic, social, and environmental impacts of the illegal wildlife trade can only be effectively tackled if we eradicate both the demand and supply sides for illegal products wherever in the world this occurs.
To this end, we commit ourselves and call upon the international community to take the following action…Support, and where appropriate undertake, effectively targeted actions to eradicate demand and supply for illegal wildlife products”.
That does not just mean the Chinese and the Vietnamese tackling ivory and rhino horn; that means us. We made a commitment to that in our manifesto, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann). Our manifesto stated:
“As hosts of the London Conference on the Illegal Wildlife Trade, we helped secure the adoption of the London Declaration on Illegal Wildlife Trade and will continue to lead the world in stopping the poaching that kills thousands of rhinos, elephants and tigers each year. We will…press for a total ban on ivory sales, and support the Indian Government”.
We are clearly committed to the issue.
We were world leaders. We had the world here. All our extraordinary historical links, including our links to the Commonwealth, our good relations with China through Hong Kong and our good relations with the United States, were enormously valuable. What has happened since then? We should think carefully about that. We had that commitment in our manifesto. We were elected, and we got a majority. What has happened? Sadly, I fear that we are losing our leadership. We did not send anyone to the International Union for Conservation of Nature conference in Honolulu. We certainly did not send a Minister. We then had the CITES conference. On the day, the Secretary of State made a welcome announcement that she intended to bring in a ban on post-1947 ivory. I did not understand why the consultation did not start immediately. It was promised early this year. It is now the evening of 6 February, and the consultation has not yet started.
I hear that there might be complications about a fast track. I am very glad that it is not a slow track, because we have not started. I would like the Minister to respond on this, because it is a fundamental point. According to the document I have pulled off, a fast-track consultation can happen where the measure is low cost, which means that the gross cost to business in-year is less than £1 million. The planned consultation on a post-1947 ban may count as fast track. If it is not fast track, or if the ban is extended to earlier years, how much longer will it take, because 23 September was 19 weeks ago last Friday? In that time, we have lost 12,768 elephants. I would like a specific answer to that. If we do not have a fast track, and go for an all-encompassing, near-comprehensive ban, how long will that take? That is fundamental. In public with Lord Hague, I welcomed as a first step the Secretary of State’s announcement of the post-1947 ban. We have written letters, and we have a hundred different conservationists and other people behind us, and what worries me is that we are losing ground.
Several Members have mentioned China. China recently introduced a ban. It is going to stop the use of ivory. I heard late this afternoon from China, verbally, that large companies will be closed in China in the earlier phase before 31 March 2017. That will include state-owned factories and possibly some others. The briefing states:
“According to SFA Notice No.9 2015, there are 34 designated factories and 130 retail outlets in China that are permitted to legally operate in the manufacture and trade of ivory; representing 89 discreet enterprises in total.”
It looks as if the Chinese plan is that they will be closed, because the notice states, in its first point:
“All the processing and sale of ivory and ivory products will be stopped by December 31, 2017.”
What is fascinating is that the African countries are now looking to China as an example, not us, who held the greatest wildlife conference in 2014. Only two days ago, the Shanghai Daily said:
“The European Union (EU) member states should take a cue from China and ban domestic and overseas trade in ivory products, members of the African Elephant Coalition (AEC) said.
We welcome China’s decisive action to close its ivory market. It is a major breakthrough in the battle to save elephants,’ AEC chairman Patrick Omondi said.
But we need other countries with legal domestic markets to follow suit and are calling on the EU to take advantage of the momentum created by China and shut down their trade in ivory once and for all’”.
What is happening in other parts of the world? Hong Kong has recently announced plans to implement a ban within five years. America has a very tight ban. In some states, such as California, the ban is even tighter, yet we have still not begun our consultation.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington made comments about the antiques trade. I was fascinated, as the hon. Member for South Antrim said, to find that the antiques trade was worth £13 billion. I got a note from the British Art Market Federation that total sales in the whole arts and antiques market reached £9 billion in 2014. The ivory trade is a round of drinks. Do not tell me that we are going to bring the antiques trade to its knees if we limit the trade in items containing ivory in a measured and sensible manner. Why do we not go to America and talk to the Americans and the Californians and see how they have done it? They have de minimis specifications. They have a limit of 200 grams, so an ancient piano can be sold and does not have to be destroyed. In many ways, that is what is awful; these wonderful creatures died a tragic death, but at least they live on in piano keys. I would like to see such items allowed to be traded, but under very strict conditions.
Happily for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), I have got the figures for what carbon dating costs. In September 2016, there was a case in Carlisle Crown court, and the judge sensibly directed that the objects, which were described as “cow bone carvings”, should be carbon dated. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many objects there were, but the total cost was £1,134. I have also picked up that the University of Oxford does a cheap deal on a single item for £500. He rightly keeps mentioning that issue, and I think there is merit in it.
I am looking at a near-comprehensive ban. With respect to my near office neighbour, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, a total ban would not work. A near- comprehensive ban, learning lessons from the States and other countries—it is amazing, but we might be learning lessons from China—is the way forward. It is simply not possible to stop the ivory trade, and it is not possible to maintain the high moral ground and tell other countries what they should be doing if we have not set an example. It is absolutely incredible that we have fallen behind.
Rob Marris
First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for actually producing some evidence with that £500 figure. He will not be surprised to hear me say this, but it looks like having a certification system at £500 a pop for pre-1947 ivory is the way forward to balance things. He has spoken passionately, and I hope he gets on to this matter. I asked the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for some evidence that a total ban on the domestic ivory market, which is what the debate is about, will stop or lessen considerably—hopefully to zero—the poaching of elephants. I am not getting a causal connection there, because I am not hearing the evidence.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my not-so-distant neighbour for his kind compliments. First, it is easy to cheat, and people in the trade will cheat. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall may not be an expert. He is a BBC journalist, and he did a pretty simple test. He bought nine items. Six that were masquerading as pre-1947 were dated as post-1947. We must not underestimate the fact that there is massive cheating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington quoted TRAFFIC. It did a survey in September 2016 of the whole of London’s antique sector. It found ivory items widespread across the city’s antiques markets. The report found that
“the UK plays a role in illegal ivory trade, at both import and re-export, but in particular as a transit country, with ivory seizures reported by the UK having increased in recent years.”
It also pointed out how cheating can go on. It mentioned a fascinating case. As a country, we reported exports of only 17 raw tusks, but importers’ records showed 109 tusks originating from the UK. There is no doubt whatever that an illegal trade is going on and that people are cheating. They give cover to other activities in other markets. We simply cannot take the high ground and ask other countries to ban activities, as the Chinese have done, if we have not set an example. Our proposed ban on post-1947 ivory is sadly now inadequate and is being overtaken by countries such as China and India, which have introduced bans.
Rob Marris
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for producing evidence, but he has left me more confused. When I looked at it, I found that the August 2016 report by TRAFFIC, “A Rapid Survey of UK Ivory Markets”, stated that links between the antiques trade and
“the current elephant poaching crisis appear tenuous at best.”
Of more than 3,000 objects sampled, no new or unworked ivory was found. Only one item from the 1960s came after the 1947 cut-off date for antique ivory. Are we reading different reports?
[Mrs Anne Main in the Chair.]
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman has cited evidence of cheating. The point is that the UK is by far the largest exporter of ivory items among EU members. According to CITES, the EU had a huge export volume of about 1,874 ivory transactions from 2006 to 2015, but we were easily the largest with 25,351. That is 54% of the EU total, and we know cheating goes on. Bluntly, we have to learn lessons. In China, it has always been an iconic key feature of great family occasions—a wedding, a banquet or a state occasion—to eat shark fin soup. It has come down from on high in recent years and the party establishment in China has said, “We have got to stop this because of the damage to shark populations,” and they have. Habits have changed.
The immediate reaction to ivory is, “Great. There’s world demand. It is marvellous that there is now prosperity in China and people are not dying of starvation as they were when I grew up. Let us let them prosper. Let them buy ivory and let us grow more of the item.” The problem is that we simply cannot farm elephants and rhinoceroses and meet the demand. If there is any legal activity, it gives cover to the illegal activity. That is a tragedy. I would love to be a Hayekian on this. I would love to say, “Let us open up savannahs and grow masses of elephants.”
We cannot cope with 600 million new middle-class people with middle-class aspirations in China, where ivory has great value and is seen to be an investment. That is the worst thing. Some are buying ivory knowing that the supply will dwindle and ultimately disappear when elephants are exterminated, and their product will go up. The answer is to follow what they did on shark fins. Let us simply make this a non-U item. It should simply not be acceptable.
We have stopped drink-driving. It is no longer acceptable in this country. It is very simple. I am afraid I totally disagree with the hon. Member for South Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington. It is completely ludicrous to put things on the same level.
Danny Kinahan
Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that we are all on the same page? I want the near ban to protect the animals as much as he and anyone else does. This is a question of semantics. We have got to find an urgent way of protecting the elephants. We do not have to damage the antiques trade. We can do things together, but let us do it quickly. Let us learn from the Chinese and the Americans. We are all on the same page.
Mr Paterson
In that spirit of co-operation, perhaps we could agree among ourselves that we need to close down the majority of the trade in products from live animals, otherwise we will lose the elephant. Perhaps we could have a near-comprehensive ban, which is not quite what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw wanted.
I ask the Minister whether we could extend the consultation, which still has not started yet. I had a good meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and Lord Hague last week, along with DEFRA and Foreign Office officials. As I understand it, there is a possibility that, because the post-1947 consultation has not yet started, we could extend it deeper. We could look at a complete ban or a rolling 100-year ban, as the United States has done, but sadly, I am convinced that a post-1947 ban is worthless. If it falls down on the so-called fast-track rule—we have already been faffing around for 19 weeks—let us go for a full-blooded consultation on a really meaningful ban that is near-comprehensive and look at what the States has done on 200 grams and de minimis. We will not be destroying ancient bagpipes and pianos and absolutely not destroying wonderful ancient painted panels. We would be stopping the trade, which can be disguised and which allows illegal activity to carry on elsewhere. If we do not do that, we will lag behind and the Chinese will be well ahead of us.
We will be hosting the conference, which I am delighted to say is coming back to London, having been to Botswana and Hanoi, where the Secretary of State made a splendid and resounding statement that she wanted to introduce a ban, but we will still be limping along behind. We have lost the leadership.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and commend him on everything he has done to get the Government to take the matter more seriously. Does he agree that, apart from discussing how we get round the antiquities problem, we need to do a great deal more on the ground using DFID to put funding in to help fight this wicked trade? A lot more could be done immediately to support the fight against the illegal trade in ivory if we used our power as a nation and if we used DFID money to achieve some of that.
Mr Paterson
I agree with my hon. Friend. If we had more time, I would talk about the lessons from the wildlife conference, where there was clearly a DFID angle. The three big aims are to reduce demand, improve enforcement—in fairness, lessons from the wildlife conference had a direct impact on operations in northern Kenya the year after—and long-term sustainable economic development. He is absolutely right about that.
To go back to my visit to Kruger, it is near a pretty miserable and poor part of northern Mozambique. It is very easy to spot the rhino horn poaching leaders because they live in smart houses and have smart cars. There is not much economic activity there. When one of these guys gets back over the border with a rhino horn, there is a big celebration. It is absolutely fundamental that we work with Mozambique to bring in sanctions in that country, along with better law enforcement and better judicial arrangements so that there are penalties, which has been done in other countries. We also need to teach them about the value of the animals so that their children and grandchildren will benefit in the long term. The game tourism industry in South Africa and Kenya is advanced and brings in significant income. There is none of that in northern Mozambique, but that is the sort of thing we should be doing.
Rebecca Pow
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful and impassioned speech. I want to speak up for a project in Samburu in Kenya where they are doing exactly as he describes. We could target more funds that work for the communities to save the habitats and the elephants. We could also focus on carbon dating. If we know products are coming out of those areas, we can isolate them and target the poaching areas that we know are a problem.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention—I totally agree—which brings me on to the London conference. At the London conference in 2018, we should definitely look at involving DFID and we should look at long-term conservation measures and the development of long-term economic prosperity. We should look at attaching value to the animals and at co-operating with the farming activity. The Minister might have ideas on this. We discussed technology last week with her colleague at the Foreign Office. If the poachers get hold of drones and new technology, it would be catastrophic. We need the very latest technology brought to bear.
Sadly, the lesson from the Kruger was that we had a South African major-general—the head of South African Special Forces was his No. 2. He had been involved in what the South Africans politely call 28 incidents. They had three aeroplanes, two helicopters and 700 well-armed rangers, and they still lost four rhinos the weekend I was there. There is no doubt that better surveillance and better intervention is necessary and should be discussed at the London conference.
Another problem is corruption and money laundering. We have great expertise in this country and a proud record under our previous Chancellor of bearing down on corruption in our own country. There are lessons we can export to other countries when we go to the conference.
Another area of real value is sentencing guidelines. We had better start at home. I would be interested if the Minister talked about that, because Justice Ministers are not keen to lean on our officials who apply sentencing guidelines. In 2015, there was a case involving a tiger parts trader, who was found guilty and got only 12 months’ community service. She was not fined or given the appropriate penalty. I hope the Minister will comment on that. We can take action now and set examples of better law enforcement for other countries. We should use the maximum penalties. That should also be discussed in the London conference. Will the Minister talk about that, given that the consultation has not started?
Sadly, the post-1947 ban has been overtaken by action in other countries, so we have to go for a near-comprehensive ban. It sounds like there could be an agreement that would satisfy the hon. Member for South Antrim and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, possibly using carbon dating, which will thrill my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, and a de minimis rule. Let us be practical. We do not want to destroy ancient pianos, so let us go for 200 grams and look at how the Americans and others have done it sanely. Do not forget that other countries will be watching us. This is the key thing: we cannot go to the 2018 conference unless we have the high ground.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on the knowledgeable way he introduced the debate. Although some hugely important issues are being debated this week, the excellent turnout in the Chamber shows that ivory is also an issue about which future generations will ask whether we did enough.
We are the dominant species on the planet, but not necessarily the wisest. We have overseen the extinction of countless species over the centuries. We have abused our power, which we should be using to repair the damage we have caused. As we have heard, 30,000 elephants die in Africa each year to supply the ivory trade. The Government committed to ban the ivory trade in their two most recent manifestos, and announced new proposals to restrict the sale of ivory. There is a general concern, which has already been discussed, that the proposals do not go far enough, as they do not cover ivory products dated before 1947. Some people think they will not substantially reduce the amount of ivory bought and sold in the UK.
We want the ownership of ivory products to be considered socially, morally and legally beyond the pale, but by exempting items from before a certain date, are we not in danger of watering down the message that the objectification of these magnificent creatures is unacceptable? The Government may class pre-1947 works as antiques, but does someone with an untrained eye—such as me and, I suspect, the vast majority of the population—know what is pre-1947 and what is not? It is clear that very few people working in customs have the necessary skills and expertise to know the difference. The date seems arbitrary. A total ban was promised in not one but two manifestos. That is what we should aim for.
This is not the time to dilute messages or measures. This is the last chance saloon. Between 2007 and 2014, the savannah elephant population declined by 30%, largely due to poaching. Forest elephants are declining by 9% per year. The Great Elephant Census, which reported in August 2016, showed that the current rate of decline in elephant numbers is 8% per year, primarily due to poaching.
Evidence shows that more elephants are being killed each year than are being born. History gives us a pretty clear warning about where that leads. Man hunted the woolly mammoth to extinction, but at least we did not then have the global picture to help us understand what we were doing. Then it was a case of survival for the hunter gatherers, but now it is about not survival but personal gratification, trade, greed and sometimes even sport—motivations we should consider abhorrent when talking about the murder of sentient animals.
Let us not forget that, when elephants are slaughtered, they are not without feeling or thought. The Nayaka people, who live in south Indian forests, told of “the elephant who walks alone”. It had a reputation for being aggressive and one day killed a human. The Indian authorities wanted to hunt it down as they considered it a risk, but the Nayaka people refused to help. They said that the elephant had seen its partner captured, which caused it to become angrier. They told the authorities that if they had seen their partner treated the same way, they would have reacted similarly. We all know the pain of losing a loved one, so let us be clear that, when those animals are killed, there is an emotional as well as a physical cost.
With an estimated value of between $15 billion and $20 billion annually, the illegal trade in wildlife is a lucrative market for criminals. It is one of the highest-value illicit trade sectors in the world. I agree that the existence of a legal ivory trade serves as a cover for illegal sales of ivory, and continues to perpetuate the cycle of supply and demand. It has been reported that, in recent years, a surge in demand for wildlife products, including ivory, has largely come from east and south-east Asian markets. I would like to hear from the Minister about whether there is more we can do to deal with the countries that the demand comes from. As the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) said, tackling the illegal activities in the countries in which poaching takes place is a huge challenge. Are we satisfied that we are doing all we can as a nation to tackle it?
I have to disagree with the hon. Members who spoke in support of the antiques trade. I do not believe that this can be described as a balancing act between the survival of elephants and the continuation of the antiques trade. The trade will carry on without ivory. It will adapt and survive, but elephants will not have that option if we carry on down this road.
There have been a number of speeches today, so I will be brief. I will conclude by naming several animals: the eastern cougar, the western black rhinoceros, the Japanese river otter, the Pinta island tortoise, the Cape Verde giant skink, the Formosan clouded leopard, the Scioto madtom, and the Bermuda saw-whet owl. It is not a particularly long list, but every name on it should serve as a warning to us that we are responsible for our actions—not just to each other, but to all other creatures on the planet. All those animals have been declared extinct in just the past five years. When advances in technology and understanding give us the power to do things that were unimaginable even 10 years ago, it is to our immense shame that there are still one or two extinctions every year. I do not want a list read out in three or four decades that includes elephants. This is our last chance. If it comes to pass that we read out a list of extinct animals that includes elephants in the future, the next generation will judge us harshly, and they will be right to do so.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on securing this debate. As I rise to speak, a 10th elephant has probably died—although my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who made an exceedingly good case, spoke for such a long time that it might be a 20th elephant.
It is telling that we are debating this subject again just two months after we had virtually the same debate in this place, but so many people signed the petition that we were driven to have another debate, which has cross-party support. The fact that so many people—including many in Taunton Deane, where, as far as I know, we do not have any elephants—signed the petition shows that there is so much passion for ensuring that these creatures remain alive. The all-party group for animal welfare, which I co-chair, spends much time talking about domestic animals, but we also deal with international animals. Ivory is high on our agenda.
As has been said, something like 30,000 African elephants have been slaughtered in just the past year. There are only 450,000 African elephants left. That figure will be halved in six years. Allowing that to go on around us is a shocking reflection on our society. The death of just one elephant is a death too far—elephants are too valuable. This summer I visited one of those wonderful conservancies in Kenya. Seeing abandoned baby elephants is heartrending because they cannot cope on their own. They do not really grow up and cannot leave their mums until they are about eight years old. That is one small, heartrending angle on the situation.
The ripples caused when only one elephant dies go right out into the community and affect the whole habitat. The creatures live in families, but the death has a knock-on effect on the communities, too, which now very much work with the elephants in the conservancies, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire. We might describe that as an economic angle, because tourism is part of the drive to keep the elephants and to look after the wildlife, but it is about maintaining the entire biodiversity and habitat. We are talking not only about killing elephants, but about the big knock-on effect.
The illegal wildlife trade is now the fourth most lucrative transnational crime. It is also a dangerous activity. Poachers bring in increasingly sophisticated weaponry to many areas, as well as a lack of respect for the environment and the communities. The effect is to destabilise those communities. Over the past weekend, there were worrying reports of unrest in some conservation areas in Kenya, namely Laikipia, where some excellent conservation work is carried out to help species to survive, including elephants. Survival in that excellent conservation project is alongside the people. The unrest does not relate directly to poaching, which is not what caused it, but unrest opens the door to the poachers to creep in to kill more elephants.
I asked the director of the Sarara sanctuary at the Namunyak Wildlife Conservation Trust, in Samburu, northern Kenya, about whether poaching was increasing. He stressed the whole-system idea—the multifaceted approach in which conservation works alongside communities so that wildlife may thrive. By creating a potential market for ivory, we are certainly adding one more strain on those areas and projects, destabilising them. I totally support calls for DFID funding to contribute further to such conservation projects, because they will result in help for the elephants.
I welcome the Government’s forthcoming ivory consultation, but I press the Minister to include pre-1947 ivory. To consider only what we describe as “modern day ivory” is to miss the opportunity completely. We all appreciate that Government time, money and resources are exceedingly tight—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has many concerns on its table at the moment—but I am concerned that considering a ban only on post-1947 ivory in the consultation is almost a waste of our resources. As has been said, surely we would still soon have to readdress the whole issue.
As a nation—this has been much commented on—we should be keeping up with the rest of the world. Normally, we are at the forefront, leading the way on animal welfare. We pride ourselves on that.
Victoria Borwick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. After all, America has a rolling 100-year plan, China has said that it will again consider exempting antiques when it brings in its arrangements, and France already exempts antiques. As she says, there is a lot of good will about making progress, and the idea of some sort of rolling scheme might be a way forward.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I congratulate her, too, on speaking in the debate today, which was exceedingly brave. We understand many of the points made by the antiques trade, and we are not anti it. Antiques are a massive part of our history and I even have had handed down to me some ivory heirlooms—ancient broaches and bracelets. Not for one minute do I think that anyone is suggesting that I should crush them or throw them away. Indeed, I would like to hand them on to my children, because they all have a story. Antiques are part of our nation and our history. We will be thinking about a modern day ivory ban, however, so we should not miss a huge opportunity to do more. In the Chamber today we have heard some sensible ideas. Will the Minister kindly comment on that 100-year rolling plan?
I was making the point about how we should be leading the way and continuing our wonderful record on animal welfare. We need to get to grips with the issue forthwith. Obviously, we will not solve the problem overnight, but the tide can start to change. Given the actions of the Chinese Government, who have expressed their disappointment with our actions, and the growing prominence of the CITES treaty, we must not shirk our responsibilities. As the same time, however, we need to be clear about the direction that we will take and how we intend to deal with the situation.
I recognise that on paper we already go further than the CITES requirements, which only mention banning post-1990 ivory. I also understand that the use of the 1947 date is in part due to EU regulations. If we ban the sale of all ivory, enforcers would need a recognised dividing line. We are large contributors and supporters of enforcement efforts throughout the world. I applaud that, as I do the positive moves of the Government domestically to save the national wildlife crime unit. We have a good record and so must not be too negative about it. We need to use our strengths and to move on.
To sum up, I gently remind the Minister, who has a good heart in such areas, that both the 2010 and 2015 manifestos state that we will press for a total ban on ivory sales, so to consult only on post-1947 ivory seems to be shirking our responsibilities somewhat. With many hon. Friends and other hon. Members, I urge the Government to get on with the consultation soon, but it should not unduly affect museums and other places that hold historic items and heirlooms. There are many good suggestions of how to deal with the issue, including those of the World Wide Fund for Nature.
The introduction of a total ban would be welcome not only for the elephants and by the communities where the elephants live, but by all those animal lovers from Taunton Deane and further afield who have signed the petition. Surely we want an environment that works for everyone and everything. The Minister has already done great work with the introduction of a microbeads ban to protect our marine habitat—a forward move by the Government—but we need to protect everything, from our ancient trees to our nematodes in the soils and, in particular, those gentle giants, the elephants. It would be a very sad reflection on our society if we are unable to take that small step for the sake of those glorious fellow creatures.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.
I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing the debate forward and I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on one of the shorter speeches so far, which nevertheless comprehensively introduced the topic. These Monday evening e-petition debates often have a box office quality about them and clearly attract the interest of our constituents and the public, so I wonder, as a member of the Procedure Committee, whether we should look at ways to get some debates on the more important and well-subscribed issues into the main Chamber, as well as here in Westminster Hall.
One hundred and twenty-seven of my constituents signed the petition that we are discussing today, and several of them made a point of requesting that I participate in the debate. I was keen to do so in any event, because I wish to focus on DFID funding, which has been mentioned a number of times already, and the global impact of the ivory trade, which the petition mentions specifically.
I want to pick up on one thing first. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), who is no longer in his place, made a rather obtuse intervention about climate change. I am not entirely sure what he was getting at. To try to pretend that these issues are not interrelated is to misunderstand the situation. Climate change was described by Lord Stern as the “biggest market failure” of modern history, and it affects elephant populations just as much as human populations—in fact, perhaps doubly so, because people may well be driven to poach elephants if they cannot find sustainable livelihoods for themselves. If, because of climate change, people are displaced from their land or cannot grow crops to feed themselves and their families, they will look for other means of generating an income. To pretend that the debate about tackling climate change and the debate about protecting biodiversity and elephant populations are mutually exclusive is to misunderstand the nature of the debate as a whole.
The main conversation has been about the importance of a ban on the domestic ivory trade and how that will affect the broader illegal trade around the world, prevent money laundering, and so on. As other Members have said, we have to tackle both supply and demand. We can play a role in developing countries by using the expertise that we have here in the United Kingdom. The Government of course have a responsibility here; sustainable development goal 15 commits all the parties that are signed up to it to protect ecosystems and halt biodiversity loss, so there is a global agenda in play even as we discuss the domestic market. As I said, one of the best ways of doing that is to ensure that poaching is not the most lucrative option for people who live in otherwise pretty desperate and poor circumstances. Any initiatives and support that help people to diversify their incomes, pursue genuine economic development and education opportunities, and all the rest of it, ought to be welcomed.
There has been some discussion about DFID funding, and I think that has been conflated a little with aid. The 0.7% budget is welcome, and I hope that the Minister will restate this Government’s commitment to that in this and future spending rounds, as other Ministers have when I pressed them to. Although I would like as much of that money as possible to be spent by DFID, if the Government insist on spending some of it through other Departments, tackling the ivory trade seems a pretty worthwhile use of that additional or alternative spending. It is certainly a much better alternative to some of the securitisation that we have seen and some of the commercial investments that have been discussed elsewhere. I note that an initiative to tackle poaching already exists in Malawi. That was announced at the various conferences that we have heard about, and the UK Army is involved in it. It would be interesting to know whether that will be classified as overseas development assistance.
Some aid money and UK expertise have been used in counter-terrorism initiatives. I wonder whether some of the approaches that have been used to disrupt Daesh and other terrorists—tackling cyber-communications, shutting down illegal bank accounts and so on—could be used to disrupt poachers and traders in the illegal wildlife and ivory trades, who use many of the same techniques. Perhaps that expertise can be used to take forward some of these goals, too. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made a point about the conditionality that is sometimes attached to aid, and that is also worth considering, especially if money goes to Governments rather than international development organisations.
Finally, there has been discussion about the antiquities and antiques markets. It is important to draw a distinction between antiques and antiquities. I do not think anyone suggests that incredibly valuable and historic pieces such as the Lewis chessmen should be covered by a ban. Most of those things are priceless and will not be traded or sold in any meaningful way. We welcome the fact that the British Museum has permanently loaned the chessmen back to an exhibition in Lewis and the Western Isles. That is where the distinction between a total ban and a near-total ban comes in. It is important to learn lessons from other parts of the world—particularly the United States. The idea of defining an antique as something that is more than 100 years old, which would mean that the date changed year on year, is well worth exploring. The UK Government ought to consult as widely and as soon as possible. They must explore all options, ensure that all the lobby groups and everyone who has provided briefings have their views heard, and take the best advice possible.
Another reason for preserving antiques and antiquities is that our interpretation of them may change over time. Intricate and beautiful works of art may have been created in a time of ignorance or less understanding about the damage that was being done to the planet. We should remember that, which may help us get to the point where it is perhaps not the elephant itself but the successful campaign to save the elephant that is legendary.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again in a debate about the domestic ivory trade, Mrs Main. I thank Ellen Cobb for creating the petition, and the 107,000 people who have signed it so far. We know that they speak for the 85% of the population who want this Government to introduce a total ban on the ivory trade, but 8% of people believe that such a ban is already in place, which takes us even further into why the Government need to move on this issue.
We have seen progress in China since we last debated this issue, and I very much concur with the many Members who have talked about us now being followers rather than leaders in this movement. We must pick up the pace, because the pace around this issue is definitely picking up out there in our communities. The world is watching on in horror as these majestic, sensitive—we have heard about the way that they live in families—and beautiful animals are butchered, yet we are no further forward with the Government.
What progress has been made in the 50 days since we last debated this issue? If we take the figure of one elephant being killed every 15 minutes, nearly nine elephants have been slaughtered since this debate began, and 4,811 elephants have lost their lives since I last spoke about this issue. But this is not just about elephants; we must remember the rangers who guard those elephants, and some 17 fellow human beings have lost their lives. We are talking about the most heinous crimes, which are destroying these beautiful animals. There is much frustration across the country, as there has been in the Chamber today and as there is, I understand, in the Cabinet. People are baffled that the Government are not moving further, faster. We want the pace to pick up as a result of today’s debate—I have picked that up from every single contribution—and I trust that the Government will respond.
We all have a responsibility. We have heard how important it is for our generation to ensure that we do everything that we can on our watch to introduce a ban and ensure that it picks up pace. Non-governmental organisations have done amazing work; they have campaigned and raised awareness. It is through that awareness that we become more responsible for our actions here. I want to put on the record my thanks to them.
Dr Cameron
Will the hon. Lady join me in congratulating Stop Ivory, which I meant to mention in my speech? It has really put this issue on the agenda and at the core of what it does, and ensured that public support is targeted and the campaign moves from strength to strength.
Rachael Maskell
Absolutely, Stop Ivory has done a wonderful job, as have the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the WWF, Tusk and Save the Elephants. There are so many organisations out there—I would not want to draw out one in particular—all working together, I hasten to say, because they have one objective. I think we can see that right across the House we share an objective with them to move forward on the ban.
As we have heard, what we are talking about is getting on top of criminal activity. Surely the Government’s first focus should be to get on top of what is happening, which is happening in conjunction with other criminal gangs, drug rackets and sales of arms. We know that there is an interconnection, and it is so important that we get on top of that criminal activity. A full ban is one way of bringing an end to those gangsters’ deplorable activity. From the statistics we have heard so many times in this place, we know that 200 to 300 tonnes of ivory are being stolen from elephants. That is bringing in £10 billion to £20 billion of blood money. Therefore, shamefully, we are complicit with that agenda if we are not doing absolutely everything in our power to stop the trade.
I want to come on to the consultation, which we have not seen yet, and the date of 1947. We were promised it at the last debate, but another two months have passed and we still do not have it. I know that DEFRA has so much on its agenda at the moment, not least dealing with the EU, but elephants cannot wait for those distractions. We need to put our foot on the accelerator. Let us move on today. Let us resolve in this place to move on and fast-track our approach in taking this forward.
We have seen how fast China has moved. A vaster, much more complex country than ours is talking about putting a stop to the process in just three months and putting a full ban in place in 12 months, so there is no reason why we have to spend months in consultation or thinking about consultations and what questions to ask. Let us just be honest and straight, and let us just move on. I therefore ask the Minister: why the delay on such an important issue? Can we not just get on with bringing in the ban? She will not find opposition across the House or across the country—in fact, people will get behind her. I therefore urge her to move on with that.
I want to look at the date of 1947. I believe I said in the previous debate that it is a rather arbitrary date, so why are we so rigid on that? Why do we not move forward? We have heard about the US and its 100-year rolling programme, which is perhaps one approach that could be taken, but why do we not move to a total ban? We have heard questions such as, “How can you tell what year it was bought?” Carbon dating is one way of doing that, but again I ask the Minister a question she did not manage to answer the previous time I challenged her on this point: can we tell the difference between ivory from 1946 and 1947 or from 1947 and 1948? Where the margins are so fine, why do we complicate things by drawing false demarcations rather than moving forward to a total ban? As we have heard, the human eye cannot necessarily spot the difference, as pieces of ivory are made to look more antique. We also know that paperwork can be forged. It is therefore important that we do not draw arbitrary lines and then try to justify it around the edges. We must have the courage of our convictions to say, “This is wrong,” and to move on from that.
Victoria Borwick
The hon. Lady is right about the difficulty of those details when something is made entirely of ivory. Of course, ivory often forms part of something else. Therefore, we often date, for example, a clock, a piece of furniture with an inlay or another decorative object on the other items. For example, it is easy to date ivory that appears in a silver teapot where it acts as the handle or an insulator. Although this debate is all about ivory—one of the reasons the date was chosen was because it is pre-convention—where ivory appears in something else, the date of the ivory can be assessed from the rest of the item.
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Lady knows so much about this subject matter—[Interruption.] She denies it. There may be other contributing factors, so that still does not necessarily date the actual ivory, and that is the subject for today’s debate. We have to move on from trying to draw arbitrary lines and making judgments, either with the human eye or with carbon dating—we have had contributions about the costing of that—and say, “Why make things so complicated, when out there across the country and in this House we want a total ban?” Let us move on from that debate. Let us be really pragmatic and bring in the total ban.
Rob Marris
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. I am trying to be pragmatic. I keep pressing for the evidence. I have to say to her, with all due respect, that she is assuming what she is trying to prove, and I do not accept that as a legislator. She assumes that a total ban will save elephants. Can she give me evidence for that?
Rachael Maskell
If my hon. Friend will hold on for now, I will move on with my speech. I will pick up those issues. The problem is, as we argue and debate in here, the gangsters out there are laughing at us, as they are still making their millions on the back of dead elephants. To be seen to take leadership on this issue and to control the agenda, it is so important that we now move forward and see that total ban. We know that the Government promised that in their manifesto, and I have made it clear that Labour would also bring in a total ivory ban, so let us move forward on this today.
The clock continues to tick. We keep debating this issue, and I dare say that if movement is not made in the Minister’s contribution today, we will be back here again and again, and at question times, continually saying, “Let’s move forward, because there is a majority view of how we take this forward.” We cannot go back to the CITES conference or to Hanoi in 2016, or look back to what China has said. We are in 2017 and we have now got our opportunity to make our mark. I therefore urge the Minister to do that, because in 2018 I do not want the UK to be on the world stage as apologists. I want to ensure that we are proud of what we have achieved to save the elephant.
I want to pick up the point that this is not just about a total ban; there has to be a wider strategy built around that. That is right, and that goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris). We have to make sure that we move forward. We have heard about the work that the Ministry of Defence is doing: the 1st Division is out there, training up people in the parks to ensure they have better security. That is part of the strategy and, as we have heard, education from the NGOs is absolutely vital, so that this generation and the next understand what is at stake.
We also need to think about what is happening with antiques, as we have heard debated today. I want to pick up the point strongly argued by the hon. Members for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and for Kensington (Victoria Borwick). I will take issue once again with calling them beautiful works of art. I am sorry, they are not. The reality is that animals have died for their production. We need to be honest about what we are dealing with. The problem is, every time these objects are glorified, value is added on to them and on to ivory. We want to see the value taken out of ivory. We do not want these items displayed as glorious parts of our heritage. It is a shameful part of our history, and we should name it as that and realise what we did in leading the world in those trades. We need to move on in the way in which we look at these pieces and name them for what they are.
Why have them on display? The Minister made an important point in the previous debate when she said that perhaps we could take them off the shelves of our museums. Perhaps that is the right way forward. I thought that was a progressive point, because that is a way of taking the value out of these items. That would be a first step in saying that they do not hold the value we have placed on them, and that would be a step forward.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I apologise for not being able to attend the debate from the beginning, Mrs Main. I entirely endorse all that the hon. Lady says about the need to clamp down on the criminals who are now killing a precious species, but what she is saying is fundamentally wrong. The value in the ivory products that came from the tomb of Tutankhamun or the royal graves at Ur, or exquisite pieces of Louis XVI furniture, is not in the ivory but in the workmanship and historic context in which they were produced. Given what she says, why, by the same token, does she not call for a ban in the trade in jewels produced from blood diamond activity—the result of the deaths of thousands of human beings, and not just elephants? How is it that we would save a single elephant by not having the 1947 cut-off?
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. Can hon. Members keep interventions brief? We are nearing the end of the debate.
Rachael Maskell
I absolutely agree. Blood stones— the fact that we have put our ideas of worth above the natural value of our fellow human beings and animals: that is wrong. The hon. Gentleman missed that very point, about the value we put on antiques versus the value of animals that will not be with us much longer, being made earlier in the debate. That is why it is vital to move on. We will mourn, on the day when elephants no longer roam the savannahs of Africa. We are now at the point when we cannot say that our values—our greed and the fact that we want those objects—are more important than saving elephants. It is important to move on and pick up the pace, rather than delaying and dragging our feet. We must put something in place now—including introducing tougher sentencing, as mentioned earlier. That is an important part of a wider package, as is getting on top of the cyber trade, and making sure that there is infrastructure for policing the elephants’ habitat.
We are dealing with organised criminality and we need to do so with the severity it deserves. Therefore let us move on. The Minister has an opportunity not to drag us forward slowly, following other countries, but to take leadership on the issue again and issue a total ban on ivory. That will make ivory pieces worthless—in the sense that the worth of the elephant will come first. I do not think that she will hear a cry from across the country if we do that. It is an opportunity to lead and I trust that the Minister will do so.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to be taking part in the debate. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and congratulate him on obtaining it.
Like many hon. Members in the Chamber and many people throughout the world, I am deeply concerned about the decline in the population of elephants. The UK Government have committed to a ban on post-1947 ivory, but, as has been pointed out, action has so far been thin on the ground. Today’s debate is the result of a petition with more than 107,000 signatures, calling for a shutdown on the domestic ivory market in the UK. That petition is indicative of the strength of feeling about the barbaric practices that the ivory trade fuels.
Many warm words have been spoken about reducing the trade. In 2015, the US and Chinese Presidents pledged to enact near-complete bans on the import and export of ivory. I sincerely hope that the progress made in the US will not be reversed under the new regime. China has also committed to gradually stopping the processing and sale of ivory for commercial purposes by the end of 2017. That is believed to be extremely significant, since according to experts China buys 70% of the world’s ivory products.
The slaughter, however, continues in horrifying numbers, and it is hard to see, when such barbarity is going on, how the beautiful creatures that are being destroyed can sustain themselves as a species. Ivory dealers employ armed poachers who in turn target entire herds of elephants, shooting them with automatic weapons and hacking off their tusks with axes and chainsaws. The tusks are fed into the illegal international ivory trade, which is controlled by highly organised criminal syndicates. That trade feeds demand for ivory products in Asia, Europe, the USA and elsewhere. It continues to bankroll the destruction of elephants.
The history of the ivory trade is too long and too bloody. Investigations by National Geographic uncovered the fact that elephant ivory is now a key source of funding for armed groups in central Africa such as the Lord’s Resistance Army. National Geographic commissioned the creation of artificial tusks with hidden GPS trackers, which were planted in the smuggling supply chain, starting in the Central African Republic. They averaged 16 miles a day, crossing the border into South Sudan. The price of ivory can rise tenfold as it moves through the supply chain. For a pound of ivory, middlemen in the bush pay poachers anything from $66 to $397. As tusks reach Asian markets their value skyrockets and they are used for carving in art and jewellery.
The savannah elephant has declined by 30% between 2007 and 2014, largely owing to poaching: 144,000 elephants have been lost—about 96 a day. Even in protected areas, such as parks, a huge number of carcases is reported. Embattled park rangers are often the only defence for wildlife and villagers. Increasingly, park rangers speak of being there to protect not just the land and animals but the people who live around the park. Worryingly, studies have shown that more than 90% of ivory in large shipments seized between 2002 and 2014 came from elephants that died less than three years before. That demonstrates that it is not taking long at all for illegal ivory to make it to the marketplace, which testifies to the fact that there are large networks for moving ivory across Africa and out of the continent.
What we need, to stop that horrific practice, is international co-operation. We need it as soon as possible if elephants are to survive as a species. That is how urgent the matter has become. All countries around the world need to introduce a complete ban on the international and domestic ivory trade. As has been said, there was a pledge to do that in the Conservative party’s manifesto, but so far the Government have not acted.
I want to take issue with some things that have been said in the debate, which I and I am sure others listening to it found bewildering, if not chilling. To suggest that a ban on ivory puts us on the same page as the religious fundamentalists who destroyed Palmyra is not only absurd but a little hysterical. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) said that that was so. I found it quite distressing when he talked about antiques—trinkets with pretty gold tops. Religious fundamentalists destroyed Palmyra deliberately, but a ban on ivory will not destroy trinkets or important historical pieces. Banning trade in ivory does not mean we lose our history; it means we remove the conditions in which the ivory trade thrives and continues.
The hon. Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick), to whom I pay tribute for attending and speaking so well while suffering from a malady, spoke about the beautiful historic ivory objects in churches and museums, but I am not convinced that banning the trade in ivory threatens their beauty or intrinsic historical value. It seems from the answer she gave me that if historic artefacts cannot be valued in pounds, shillings and pence, they have no value at all in the eyes of the world. I find that extremely depressing.
I believe passionately that as long as there is an ivory trade of any kind, the illegal ivory trade will continue. We have already heard about the difficulty and the prohibitive cost involved in trying to date an ivory product.
Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)
Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to bring her remarks to a close, as I want to call the Front-Bench speakers at 7.
Patricia Gibson
Perhaps I may just address my remarks to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), who spent most of the debate trying to get an answer to a specific question about the relationship between a total ban on ivory trading and poaching. If we can get a total international ban, it will make ivory much more difficult to sell. The more difficult it is to sell, the fewer buyers there will be. That will reduce the price of ivory, because there is no one to sell it to.
We need to push for a total ban. Time is running out. The United Kingdom could do something good here. It could lead in this battle and use its international influence. I urge the Minister to tell us what plans she has in that direction.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the crucial issue of protecting our planet’s wildlife. As we have heard, the magnificent African elephant is at grave and immediate risk from slaughter by poachers for its ivory tusks.
I suspect that many people watching this debate at home, including my constituents, will be wondering why we are debating the plight of elephants again today. Indeed, the many people who signed the petition are, I suspect, bemused that Parliament is again debating a subject that all right-minded people consider incontestable. Many agree that it is incontestable because they are familiar with the plight of the African elephant: they have seen how they are ruthlessly killed and slaughtered; how poachers use axes and even chainsaws to hack into the elephants’ faces to access their tusks; and how all of that is done in front of their young, without a second thought as to the horrific impact on their psychology.
We know that elephants are intelligent, social animals with complex social structures, subtle systems of learning and sophisticated communication, but we are only beginning to recognise the true impact of this slaughter and how it is endangering the species and the ecosystem within which these animals live. Sadly, we are having this debate because the UK Government are contributing to the conditions that encourage the slaughter of these animals and have failed to deliver the promises made in the Conservative party election manifestos of both 2010 and 2015, for which many people voted.
In September 2015, the then US President Obama and China’s President Jinping together pledged to enact near-complete bans on the import and export of ivory. They are to be commended for their pledge, which they upheld. In June 2016 the US Government introduced new regulations to ban the trade in ivory, and at the end of 2016, China announced that it too would introduce a ban on all ivory trade and processing activities by the end of 2017. India, Hong Kong and France, along with almost all African countries, have also introduced bans on ivory trading. In contrast with the United States, China, Hong Kong, India, France and many African nations, the UK Government have failed to act. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) noted, that is regrettable.
Despite the Conservative party manifesto of 2010 noting,
“To give wildlife greater protection, we will… press for a total ban on ivory sales and the destruction of existing stockpiles”
and the 2015 manifesto then explaining, under the heading “We will tackle international wildlife trade”,
“We will…press for a total ban on ivory sales, and support the Indian Government in its efforts to protect the Asian elephant”
the UK Government have done almost nothing. It is largely because the UK Government failed to deliver on their manifesto commitments that e-petition 165905 was signed by more than 107,000 right-minded members of the public. Many will be watching this debate today, and I congratulate and thank each of them for creating this opportunity. In fact, 85% of the public think that buying and selling ivory in the UK should be banned outright.
The e-petition rightly notes that 30,000 African elephants are slaughtered every year just for their tusks. Despite the promises that have been made, the UK Government have still not outlawed the trade. From 2009 to 2014, 40% of UK customs seizures were ivory items, and yet that evidence of an horrific trade has not been sufficient for the UK Government to implement promised action to ban the trade in ivory and fully commit to outlawing the markets that fuel the wasteful slaughter of elephants. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) noted, there are only around 450,000 African elephants left in the world. In another six years, there will be half that number. I wonder how far numbers have to fall before the UK Government finally start taking the action promised more than seven years ago to outlaw a trade that is placing elephants at risk of extinction.
The UK has a thriving, growing domestic ivory market. Ivory is widely available for sale, subject only to some licensing restrictions on post-1947 ivory. Independent reports have found that the UK market plays a critical role in encouraging illegal wildlife trade, provides a hiding place for the trade in illegal products manufactured from post-1947 ivory and is seriously undermining international efforts to close down a hideously destructive trade. The UK Government’s failure to act is simply inexcusable.
The UK Government’s inaction is all the more shaming because while other countries are implementing bans, the UK Government announced plans as recently as 21 September 2016 to permit trade in ornaments and works of art dating to before 1947 by classifying the ivory as antique. More welcome was the announced intention to ban the sale of worked ivory produced after 1947, but disappointingly that remains just an intention. DEFRA, we understand, now plans to consult with environmental groups, industry—whatever that might be—and other relevant parties to establish how and when such a ban could be introduced and necessary exemptions early in 2017. When exactly will that happen, Minister? Sadly, despite the manifesto commitments of 2010 and 2015, that consultation has not happened and the UK Government are procrastinating.
An immediate and total ban is desperately required. We must be absolutely clear that the UK market in ivory is connected to the illegal market in post-1947 or modern ivory. The UK Government should be leading action to completely close down the domestic market with immediate effect for both pre and post-1947 ivory. The UK Government’s current proposal to ban sales of post-1947 ivory does not go far enough. Focusing on so-called modern ivory will not significantly reduce the amount of ivory bought and sold in the UK and will do little to stop the illegal wildlife trade across the world. It will, in fact, continue to encourage the slaughter of African elephants and to offer a hiding place for trade in products manufactured from ivory taken from slaughtered animals.
The UK Government’s failure to act is damaging international momentum and undermining the actions taken by other countries. We need effective action on a range of fronts, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) explained. The people who signed this e-petition want the UK Government to stop procrastinating and begin acting. The people want the UK Government to join the global effort under way to end the ivory trade and to close down the UK’s ivory market. Our constituents are not interested in excuses, in another round of consultations or in spin. They are interested in protecting one of our planet’s most extraordinary animals. They want to know that the Government will honour their manifesto promises and start to protect these priceless animals. I urge the Minister: for goodness’ sake, get on with the task.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mrs Main. I thank the members of the public who signed the petition and the Petitions Committee for securing this debate. Our thanks must also go to all the organisations, some of which have been mentioned, that are supporting this cause and working to protect elephants and other wildlife in this country and across the world. The hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), on behalf of the Petitions Committee, made a very clear case for why the Government need to support the ban set out in the petition. I thank him for that. I commend those who have taken part in the debate, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell). They all made an excellent case for ensuring the survival of elephants and, most importantly, why the weight of responsibility is on us here and now.
Throughout the debate, we have heard from hon. Members how the UK, and indeed the EU, must match the action to stop the terrible ivory trade that the US, France, Hong Kong and recently China, the largest global market of all, have taken. The evidence of support for immediate similar action in the UK is clear from the number of people supporting this petition and from opinion polls showing that 85% of the British public want an ivory trade ban.
The main motivation for the UK Government should be the slaughter of elephants by poachers who feed these markets. The Government must recognise that an overwhelming majority of African countries actively campaign to close down ivory markets everywhere. The Government should listen to the African nations who share their lands with the elephant herds and not to the voices of the antique traders, the big game hunters or those who still sit on stored ivory as bullion.
The Government would do well to take notice of Botswana, the largest elephant range state. It is home to 130,000 elephants, almost a third of the total African elephant population. Botswana is a Commonwealth country, a parliamentary democracy and a long-standing friend of our country. Last year, it changed its policy and is now committed to 100% protection of its elephants, which have proved to be a sure asset for the tourist trade there. Botswana’s Environment Minister, Tshekedi Khama, spoke passionately at last year’s CITES conference in favour of appendix 1 status for elephants within his country’s borders, but he was ignored by the EU and the UK Government, who used their block vote to veto it. I have been told that many UK attendees at that conference felt a true sense of shame at this outcome.
Mr Khama and his brother, the President, remain absolutely committed to conservation and to Botswana’s role as a safe haven for migrating elephants under threat in neighbouring countries. Sadly, our Government have shown little commitment to supporting these efforts. Consultation documents, which are overdue and address only a fraction of the ivory trading problem, are certainly not seen as the way forward by Botswana.
Tanzania has also changed its policy on the ivory trade, freezing its stockpile, and trying to address the serious poaching threat that has decimated its elephants in recent years. Last month, the former President, Benjamin Mkapa, called on all nations to ban trade in elephant ivory. He said:
“We need to work together to stop this, our fellows must ban the importation and uses of elephant tusks, this means there will be no market for tusks and nobody will kill elephants.”
His words are clear, and our response as a friendly country should be to close our own ivory markets, not fiddle at the margins with one category of post-1947 modern ivory.
In East Africa, we already have the inspiring example set by Kenya. For many years, that country has led African calls to ban the ivory trade, anticipating the appalling escalation of poaching. Last year, its President publicly destroyed his country’s ivory stockpile of more than 100 tonnes with huge pyres in the Nairobi national park. The action was endorsed by both France and the US, but not by the UK. That is another broken promise by the Government, who advocated the destruction of ivory stockpiles in their 2010 manifesto.
Kenya went on to press successfully for additional international action to protect elephants at the International Union for Conservation of Nature and CITES conferences in September and October 2016. Although CITES appendix 1 status was blocked by the UK and other EU countries, those conferences passed resolutions calling for the closure of domestic ivory markets throughout the world. The resolutions are clear. They do not exempt antiques, but make a link between the existence of markets and the illegal killing of and trade in elephants. Again, the UK’s role is weak and ambiguous. We must remember that the EU is the single biggest exporter of ivory and ivory products according to the CITES trade database. There was a dramatic increase in the number of both raw and worked ivory items exported from the EU in the last two years for which data are available.
At the IUCN conference, many EU countries, including France, Italy and Spain, voted to support the unequivocal call to close domestic markets. Some others abstained but, shamefully, the record shows that the UK abstained by proxy. We sent a postal vote to abstain on the fate of elephants being poached at the rate of four every hour. The sound of the UK dragging its feet in this debate may resonate around the world, as well as in this Chamber.
Only last week, Patrick Omondi, the Kenyan CITES chief and chairman of the African Elephant Coalition of 29 African countries said:
“The CITES recommendation to close domestic ivory markets was a breakthrough. But it will be meaningless if countries ignore it. The EU and its Member States have an opportunity to realign themselves with France, which recently issued strict regulations, and work with China to implement the CITES recommendation. One thing is certain: business as usual is not an option if we want to save elephants for future generations.”
I call on the Minister again, as I did in the debate in December 2016, to step up to the plate and to keep her party’s promise to ban ivory trading altogether in the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central said in that debate, Labour would support the legal steps needed to implement the ban. We must act before it is too late for the elephants. I urge the Minister to act now, to forget exemptions, to support the petition and to heed the appeal of the 29 member countries of the AEC to both the UK and the whole of the EU to permanently ban all external and domestic ivory trade.
With the European Commission due to issue new guidance on the ivory trade within and exports from the EU, following its CITES management authority’s meeting tomorrow, will the Minister take the opportunity to press for new regulations in Brussels? How can we afford to see these intelligent, beautiful giants of the Earth disappear because our generation failed to save them from extinction?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. As has been pointed out, we last debated this matter in Westminster Hall on 8 December 2016 and since then a further 30,000 people have signed this petition created by Ellen Cobb and chosen for debate by the Petitions Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for opening the debate and I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond.
It is clear that all of us here are united in our goal to stop the poaching of elephants that are being slaughtered for their ivory. Elephant numbers in most African states have seriously declined over the last decade. The brutal actions of criminals are endangering the survival of one of the world’s iconic species. That is why the Government are already taking action to end poaching, involving proposals for legislative action, which I hope will be consulted on very soon. We are working in the international community to provide global leadership to reduce the demand for ivory and direct action on enforcement, tackling the issue at source and through illegal wildlife trade channels.
Illegal wildlife trade is a global issue that can be effectively tackled only with co-ordinated international action. The UK’s rules on ivory have their basis in the international CITES agreements, implemented via EU legislation, although UK rules are already stronger than required by CITES and the EU. We do not permit exports of any ivory tusks given the obvious potential for such international trade to be used to bring illegal, recently poached ivory tusks on to the market. We expect shortly to publish our consultation and a call for evidence on proposals to extend a ban on the domestic sale of ivory and the enforcement of such a ban. I like to think that the House will see then that our initial proposals will be among the toughest in the world.
Rob Marris
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) aid that while legal ivory trade in pre-1947 items continues, there will be an illegal ivory trade. That is true, but it is not the right question. The question is—perhaps the Minister can help with this—what is the evidence that if there is no legal ivory trade of pre-1947 items, there will be no illegal trade?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I understand the argument that people have made about any market at all, and many of the examples cited today still allow a market in ivory. It will be important, in the call for evidence, for people to come forward and demonstrate that point, for the reasons I hope to set out.
Last September, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced plans for a ban on the sale of worked ivory that is less than 70 years old—from 1947 onwards. That demarcation is used across Europe and was chosen because it was 50 years before the EU wildlife trade regulations came into force to regulate trade and protect endangered wildlife. By using that date for their proposed ban on the sale of ivory, the Government are on solid legal ground to bring a near-total ban into effect quickly. For control and enforcement, there are advantages in working with a date already used by the trade and the rest of the EU to draw a dividing line.
I recognise that many people want the UK to take an even stronger stance on the ivory trade and, as the petitioners demand, that there be no trade at all in ivory. Let me reassure the House that the Government are open to views on the matter. That is why the consultation will include an open question on this, with a call for views and evidence. I am regularly informed, and have been in this debate, that other nations have banned trade, so why have we not yet done so? I think that it would be helpful to set out to the House what is happening around the world.
The US has introduced what has been described as a near-total ban. The US Government can act only at federal level, and their ban covers trade internationally and between states, although it does not affect trade within states. The ban prohibits trade in ivory items that are under 100 years old and continues to allow the trade in pieces older than 100 years, as that is the US’s legal definition of an antique. The federal ban also provides for a range of exemptions, including musical instruments and items that contain a small amount of ivory. Four states have so far chosen to apply similar controls within their state. Those restrictions do not seem to apply to establishments for educational or scientific research purposes, which includes museums. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) referred to action by California, but he will recognise that trade continues.
Dr Coffey
I am really sorry, but my right hon. Friend spoke for nearly half an hour and I have limited time to reply.
Last year, France made the bold announcement that it would permit trade in pre-1975 ivory only on a case-by-case basis, but since then it has consulted on the scope of its ban and is now considering exemptions for pre-1947 items and musical instruments. We look forward to hearing the final outcome of its consultation.
We welcome the announcement by the Chinese Government of their intention to close China’s domestic ivory market by the end of 2017. Again, we look forward to hearing more details of their intentions for the ban, including what the exemption allowing the auction of ivory “relics” will cover. However, the welcome closure of the carving factories this year will be a huge step in stopping the creation of new worked ivory artefacts.
Hong Kong was mentioned. The Hong Kong Government announced plans to phase out the domestic ivory trade, but it is my understanding that, again, there will be an exemption for antiques, which has still to be defined. Domestic sale will be allowed with a licence.
I have met groups on all sides of the debate, from conservation experts to antiques sector representatives, and will continue to do so. It matters that when considering the final outcome of the consultation, including the calls to go further, we know that there is a strong likelihood of legal challenge and so we would require further understanding of the impact on individuals, businesses and cultural institutions that own these items and the interaction with the conservation of elephants today. As has been pointed out, ivory is found in works from the art deco period and in musical instruments, often forming a small proportion of the item. The kind of assessment that we would have to consider would include how prohibiting the sale of a 17th-century ivory carving of the flagellation of Christ prevented the poaching of elephants today.
I note what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said on a total ban, as indeed have other hon. Members, and what he said on museums. I am not sure whether he would go further and seek the destruction of ivory pieces, including the throne given to Queen Victoria—I am not sure whether he wants to go that far. However, I stand by the comments that I made previously about display, and I was referring particularly to the display of raw tusks, which still happens.
Dr Coffey
It is still shortly, and I really hope it will be as soon as possible.
With regard to the reference to CITES and appendices 1 and 2, I think that I answered this in the December debate. CITES relies on scientific evidence. There is a differentiation between appendices I and II, in terms of the extinction rating in the relevant countries. There was reliable intelligence that if what was proposed went through, reservations would be applied by certain countries, thus destroying the ban by CITES.
Laws are only as effective as our action to enforce them, and the House should be proud of its record and global leadership. Enforcement at the UK border is led by Border Force, which makes ivory one of its top priorities. That is reflected by ivory seizures accounting for 40% of seized wildlife products between 2009 and 2014. One seizure alone in 2015—this was referred to—equated to more ivory than was found in the previous 10 years put together. It was more than 100 kg of tusks, beads and bangles that was en route from Angola to Germany and it was detected here in the UK. Enforcement within the UK is supported by the specialist national wildlife crime unit, which provides intelligence, analysis and specialist assistance to individual police forces and other law enforcement agencies. DEFRA has recently provided additional funding to the unit to help it to crack down on illegal trade via the internet—a growing concern.
The UK also shares its wealth of wildlife crime expertise internationally, including in a recent project providing training to customs, police, corruption specialists and parks authorities in Malawi. That has resulted in increased arrests, convictions and custodial sentences for wildlife offences. Initiatives such as those provide a real deterrent to the perpetrators of wildlife smuggling.
Dr Coffey
I have little time. The UK is working with Interpol to expand its work with key nations, tracking and intercepting illegal shipments of ivory, rhino horn and other illegal wildlife products. Initiatives such as those will make a real impact on the illegal ivory trade by disrupting trafficking routes. Reference was made to sentencing guidelines. It just so happens that I am meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), tomorrow to discuss this matter in more detail.
The driver for poaching is the lucrative profits that can be made in trafficking ivory, which is driven by the demand for ivory products. We need to raise awareness with ivory consumers of the devastating impact that they are having on elephant populations, and ultimately change behaviour. That is why the UK has supported work in Asia to increase awareness of the brutal impacts of poaching and reduce demand for ivory. We are providing practical support on the ground with financial help, and the British military train anti-poaching rangers on the frontline in Gabon, home of Africa’s largest population of forest elephants. That will be extended to other crucial countries such as Malawi. Last year, I visited South Africa, where I saw some of the work that we were doing on other animal populations at risk.
We are supporting projects in communities that share a landscape with elephants. Many hon. Members dwelt on the role of the Foreign Office and, in particular, DFID. We recognise that the money to be made from poaching can be a huge temptation to get involved, so we must continue working closely with DFID and the Foreign Office to create viable alternative livelihoods, but hon. Members will be aware that there are tight controls on official development assistance classification.
I reiterate our shared goal of ending poaching and saving elephants. That means taking not just symbolic action on domestic ivory, but action that works. The Government are committed to introducing the most effective ban possible on ivory. That means that we must ensure that our rules are robust and proportionate and will achieve the aim of ending the poaching of elephants. We need to foster truly international action to tackle the demand that drives poaching, enforce rules more effectively and strengthen criminal justice, as well as supporting communities affected by poaching. The UK continues to be a world leader in the fight to protect wildlife, but we know that there is more to be done. Our consultation on plans for even stronger action will soon be launching. That will enable us to ensure even better protection of our majestic wildlife for generations to come.
I have listened carefully to today’s debate and, in particular, the discussion on antiques and verification; there was talk of certification and radiocarbon dating. I encourage hon. Members to contribute to the consultation and call for evidence, so that we can make progress on this matter.
Luke Hall
Thank you for chairing the debate, Mrs Main. I will keep these remarks extremely brief. The attendance here today reflects the strength of feeling in the House and in the country about this issue. There were many contributions today. I will just thank specifically my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) for their passion in this Chamber and their work outside it. I thank the Minister for her update on the Government’s work and her words that the initial proposals will be among the toughest in the world, although I am disappointed that we could not come forward today with a date for the consultation. Most importantly, I thank the 107,000 people who signed the petition to ensure that we were able to hold a second debate on this issue today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 165905 relating to the domestic ivory market in the UK.
Written Statements
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Assets Sale
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
Today, the Government are starting the process required to sell part of the English student loan book under the Sale of Student Loans Act 2008. The sale covers loans issued under the previous (“pre-2012”) system, specifically those which entered repayment between 2002 and 2006.
The Government’s intention to launch this sale at this time, subject to market conditions, was set out in last year’s autumn statement. The decision to launch this process is consistent with the Government’s fiscal policy and approach to asset sales. The position of all graduates, including those whose loans are part of a sale, would also not change as a result of the sale.
This Government are committed to cutting the deficit, reducing debt, and living within our means as a country. The Government’s policy is to sell assets where it is value for money to do so and where there is no policy reason to continue to own them. Selling assets gives headroom for the Government to invest in other policies with greater economic or social returns and reduces fiscal pressures.
The Government’s policies towards student finance and higher education are not being altered by this sale. Under the current system of student support (the framework for which has been in place since 2012) we will continue to offer financial support so people who have the qualifications and want to pursue higher education are able to do so, with no limit on their numbers. This is part of making sure our economy works for everyone.
Students are protected by statute and completely unaffected. A sale would not alter the mechanisms and terms of repayment and sold loans would continue to be serviced by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and the Student Loans Company (SLC) on the same basis as equivalent unsold loans. These protections mean that purchasers would have no right to change any of the current loan arrangements or to directly contact borrowers.
The Government have launched the first sale process on the basis there is a good prospect of achieving value for money, but will only proceed with the sale subject to market conditions and a final value for money assessment. The assessment of value for money is in accordance with the HMT Green Book framework and includes a comparison of the value of retaining the student loan book and receiving payments over time (the retention value) and receiving cash now (the proceeds of the sale).
This sale will comprise the future repayments on the outstanding balances on a selection of loans, with a total face value of around £4 billion. The retention value to Government is lower and is calculated using standard Treasury Green Book methodology developed for asset sales, and also accounts for Government subsidy of the student loan system. The loans which are being sold have already been in repayment for over 10 years, and therefore much of the original value of the loans has already been paid back to Government.
The sale process is expected to take several months. Selling the loan book involves securitising the remaining future repayments on the loans and selling securities representing the rights to these to a range of purchasers. The House will be informed if and when a sale is completed.
[HCWS458]
General Affairs Council: February 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)
The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 7 February will be held in Brussels under the Maltese presidency. The agenda will cover 1) follow up to the December European Council; 2) preparation for the March European Council; and 3) Commission communication on next steps for a sustainable European future.
Follow up to the December European Council
The presidency is likely to present an update on the implementation of the December 2016 European Council conclusions on migration, security (internal and external), economic and social development (youth), Cyprus and external relations (covering the EU/Ukraine association agreement and Syria).
Preparation for the March European Council
There will be a discussion on the agenda of the March European Council. The agenda includes: security; jobs and growth; external relations; and migration.
Commission communication on next steps for a sustainable European future
The Commission will present a communication on next steps for a sustainable European future and there will be an exchange of views. The communication sets out the EU’s commitment to deliver the 2030 agenda for sustainable development which was agreed at the 2015 UN General Assembly.
[HCWS461]
National Health Service
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord O’Shaughnessy) has made the following written statement in the House of Lords:
This Government are committed to making sure that only those people who are living here and contributing to the country financially will get free National Health Service care. Following a two year programme of work to improve identification and cost recovery from chargeable patients in hospitals we consulted on extending the charging rules to areas of NHS care that are currently free to all. Proposals for this were set out in a public consultation entitled “Making a fair contribution—a consultation on the extension of charging overseas visitors and migrants using the NHS in England”, which ran from December 2015 to March 2016.
The proposals explored within the consultation aimed to support the principle of fairness by ensuring those not resident in the United Kingdom pay for NHS care. The proposals would not restrict access, but rather make sure that everyone makes a fair contribution towards the cost of the care they receive.
We are today publishing our response to that consultation. It summarises respondents’ views and sets out how the Government intend to extend charging and increase cost recovery from patients not eligible for free care, including:
Requiring NHS providers to obtain charges upfront and in full before a chargeable patient can access non-urgent treatment.
Including out-of-hospital secondary care services and NHS-funded services provided by non-NHS organisations within the services that chargeable patients will have to pay for.
Removing NHS assisted reproduction services from the range of services provided free of charge under immigration health surcharge arrangements.
The principle that the NHS is free at the point of delivery for people ordinarily resident in the UK will not be undermined by this work.
The most vulnerable people from overseas, including refugees, will remain exempt from charging. Furthermore, the NHS will not deny urgent and immediately necessary healthcare to those in need, regardless of payment. Exemptions from charging will also remain in place for the diagnosis and treatment of specified infectious diseases in order to protect the British public from wider health risks.
The potential income generated through the extension of charging will contribute towards the Department of Health’s aim of recovering up to £500 million per year from overseas migrants and visitors by the middle of this Parliament (2017-18). The recovery of up to £500 million per year will contribute to the £22 billion savings required to ensure the long-term sustainability of the NHS.
We are also publishing today on gov.uk the evaluation of the initial phase of the programme, the lessons from which we are factoring in to the future operation of the programme.
It is also available on line at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications.
[HCWS460]
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament the 2015-16 annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The appointed person is an independent person who scrutinises the use of the search and seizure powers that support the measures in the Act to seize and forfeit cash used for criminal purposes and to seize and sell property in settlement of confiscation orders.
The report gives the appointed person’s opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the search and seizure powers conferred by the Act are being exercised. I am pleased that the appointed person, Mr Douglas Bain, has expressed satisfaction with the operation of the powers and has found that there is nothing to suggest that the procedures are not being followed in accordance with the Act. Mr Bain has made no recommendations this year.
From 1 April 2015 to the end of March 2016 over £67 million in cash was seized by law enforcement agencies in England and Wales under powers in the Act. The seizures are subject to further investigation, and the cash is subject to further judicially approved detention, before forfeiture in the magistrates court. These powers are a valuable tool in the fight against crime and the report shows that the way they are used has been, and will continue to be, monitored closely.
[HCWS459]
Grand Committee
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Neighbourhood Planning Bill
Monday 6th February 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 View all Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 105KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux)
Good afternoon, my Lords, and welcome to the third day of the Grand Committee on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. I apologise for the Clock, but the mini-clock that shows the length of speeches is correct. Do not worry about that. There may be a Division in the Chamber. If there is and the Bell rings, we will adjourn and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 12: Restrictions on power to impose planning conditions
Amendment 28
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, first, it is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, back and looking in fine fettle. I shall speak collectively about government Amendments 28, 30, 35, 39, 40 to 43 and 50 to 55. I then look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on non-government amendments in the group.
Before discussing the detail of the government amendments, it may be helpful for me to set them in context. Clause 12(1) would introduce new Section 100ZA into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This would provide the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations about what kind of conditions may or may not be imposed and in what circumstances.
Planning conditions, when used appropriately, can be an effective tool in ensuring we deliver sustainable development. However, there remain concerns that some local planning authorities are imposing conditions that do not meet the well-established policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework: that conditions should be imposed only where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. The purpose behind this power is to help remove costs and delays to the delivery of new development caused by the need to respond to unreasonable planning conditions.
The power will put on a statutory footing the national policy tests for conditions and, by reducing the number of unreasonable conditions imposed and which fail to meet the tests, help get more homes built more quickly once they have planning permission. I emphasise that in the exercise of this power, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the regulations are appropriate for the purpose of ensuring that any condition imposed on a grant of planning permission for the development of land is, in broad terms, necessary, relevant, precise and reasonable. This will not impact on appropriate protections for important matters such as heritage, ecology and flood mitigation.
As drafted, Clause 12 allows the Secretary of State to exercise this power in respect of any grant of planning permission. This includes planning permission granted not just for a single planning application for a specific scheme, but by an order, which could be granted by the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London, local authorities or neighbourhood planning groups. Development orders can grant planning permission for a particular site or geographical area and for a variety of specified types of development. In the light of responses to the Government’s consultation on this new power, to which a response was published at the end of December last year, we have concluded that it is generally not appropriate to apply this power where planning permission is not granted following the consideration of an individual application in certain circumstances. We therefore seek to amend the clause.
The amendment would restrict new Section 100ZA from applying to order-making powers. Development orders are not granted following an individual application and often grant planning permission to an area. They therefore may need to impose a number of limitations. It is important that a local planning authority or the Secretary of State can set out in an order those conditions that frame the type of development that would be acceptable. This can include a condition that the development, including the change of use, is completed within three years. Such a condition may be unreasonable when imposed following the consideration of a planning application, but not in the very different exercise of granting planning permission by order.
Given this, and in the light of the consultation responses on this issue, we have concluded that the new power to limit conditions should not apply to orders. Consequently, should the amendment be approved, the power will not apply to grants of planning permission in the following: development orders, simplified planning zones, enterprise zones, and development control procedures—that is, where government authorisation is required. This will retain the core benefit of the power in ensuring that planning conditions are imposed only when necessary, while protecting the flexibility afforded to grant planning permissions by these powers. With these arguments in mind, I therefore beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 38 in this string of amendments. With one in six homes at risk at present, it is quite clear that homes need to be built which protect residents from increasing flood risk. I have put down this amendment because I noted that the Government, both on Report and in Committee in the Commons, were remarkably un-keen to delete this clause, so my thinking is that there is more than one way to skin a cat. If one feels as I do about the issue of flood risk, there is perhaps the potential for exemptions. I have tabled this amendment because all the evidence from around the UK shows that we need drainage standards and designs for drainage to be agreed up front. If they are not, it is not good for the housebuilder or the local authority, and it is certainly not good for the home owner.
In Scotland there is a legal requirement to have sustainable drainage on any development, but developers are not obliged to engage with Scottish Water on the design and building up front. This results in housebuilders producing their own designs, which Scottish Water then has issues with. The result is that 90% of these drainage systems are not adopted by Scottish Water. In Wales, however, developers have to have an agreement with the sewerage undertakers on a specific design before they start on-site. This system works and does not hold up developments. This shows that the designs for sewerage and sustainable drainage need to be settled at the beginning of the process, and local authorities need the powers to enable that to happen. If the prohibition on local authorities imposing pre-commencement conditions goes ahead, that cannot happen. What then will happen is that developers will not be certain about the drainage, the adoption or the maintenance, there will be commuted sum disagreements, developers will in all likelihood put the arrangements into a private company with no quality assurance on the drainage—it will probably end up being a tank somewhere in the ground rather than a scheme that enhances the environment or the area for the homeowner—and future flooding issues will be left for the local authority and the homeowner to pick up.
The Government have given us no evidence that there is a problem. The examples the Minister sent round in the letter to noble Lords were just a series of quotes, mainly from the annual reports from the housebuilders. I have gone through the government consultation and there is no indication of the scale of the so-called problem, and no single citing of a concrete example. It is therefore no surprise that only a minority—44%—of those who undertook the government consultation supported the proposal to prohibit local authorities from imposing pre-commencement conditions. Therefore, there is not majority support from the Government’s consultation for this measure to go ahead.
Of course, planning conditions imposed by local planning authorities should be reasonable and necessary. However, as the Government themselves said on 24 January in response to the EFRA Committee’s report on flood prevention,
“the robust planning approach in place is the best way to control development so that it does not add to flood risk”.
As such, pre-commencement conditions should be seen as a positive tool to deliver this, as well as to ensure that permission can be granted.
To be blunt, this approach is also putting the cart before the horse. After a battle with noble Lords, Clause 171 of the Housing and Planning Act requires the Government to review planning law on policy relating to sustainable drainage in England. That review by DCLG and Defra is currently under way and is due for completion by April. At this point I must say that I am grateful to the Minister for the offer of a meeting on that issue, which I understand is now scheduled for later this week.
The Government have provided no real evidence that there is a problem. Evidence from Scotland and Wales shows that we need to ensure that flooding conditions are settled up front, and there is a real risk here of pre-empting any decisions following the Government’s own review, which we are expecting in the next few months. On that basis, it is absolutely essential that the Government address the issue, and if they will not go as far as removing the whole clause, they should make exemptions for important issues such as dealing with flood risk; otherwise, we will be putting home owners of the future in real danger.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I will make my usual declarations as we start this the third day in Committee on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill. I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
This first group of amendments is concerned with Clause 12 and Schedule 3. Government Amendments 28, 35, 40 and 42 all seek to add the word “relevant” before “grant of planning permission”. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us a little more about why this is deemed necessary and it was not in the Bill in the first place. All the amendments tabled by myself and my noble friend Lord Beecham, who will be with us later—he is attending a funeral at the moment—are probing in nature. They seek to understand the Government’s thinking so that we can be clearer on the objectives, challenge the Government and provide alternative solutions.
Amendment 29 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend seeks to put in the Bill a provision for the Secretary of State to allow local planning authorities to make exceptions to the power being taken by the Government in Clause 12(1)(a) to (c). It is becoming clear how inappropriately named this Bill is—it is a complete misnomer. In this clause the Government are again taking more powers to order local authorities to do things. I can see nothing “localist” about that and nothing that supports neighbourhood planning in any way, so Amendment 29 would allow in a small way some discretion for local planning authorities to make exceptions. But of course, the clause is in the Bill because the Government believe that local planning authorities are holding up the planning process with lots of irrelevant conditions. As I have said many times before, I am a member of a planning committee and I have never had a developer come before the committee and say, “The conditions you are attempting to impose on us are holding up the development”. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that the Government have provided no evidence for this whatever. It is just not the case, and if there are delays, the Government should be looking at how local government can recover the full costs of its fees so that it can afford more resources in its planning departments.
Amendment 31 seeks to remove lines 37 and 38 on page 10 of the Bill. This extraordinary provision again seeks to give additional powers to the Secretary of State. Amendment 21 seeks to add two specific points which are important, in that account should be taken of the public interest and the sustainability of any development. I hope that all noble Lords agree that these are important considerations in making regulations and therefore should be included. Amendment 33 seeks to amend the Bill so that consultation should include local authorities. I am sure the Minister will tell us that of course the Government intend to consult local authorities, and I will be pleased to hear that, but it would be useful if he set out on the record clearly and specifically whom they intend to consult, because leaving it to chance, very broad and off the record is not the best way to ensure that the relevant bodies and organisations can come forward with their views.
These proposals also need some kind of appeals process built into them. This taking of new powers is a considerable step forward on the Government’s part, and an appeals process would allow a local authority to make its case by bringing in relevant local factors, hence my tabling Amendment 34. Amendments 36 and 37 address the need to seek a bridging agreement to pre-commencement conditions. This is a controversial part of the Bill and we are seeking to delete the provision or, if it remains, a way of dealing with the situation when agreement cannot be reached. A determination through a mediation process may be a way forward. As noble Lords will know, mediation is of course an established way to resolve problems. Again, it would be useful if the Minister told us today what he envisions will happen when the authority and the developer cannot reach agreement.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I first declare an interest as leader of a local authority—a London borough council. I must apologise to my noble friend the Minister and to other Members of the Committee. I was unable to take part in Second Reading because we had a full council meeting that day and I could not stay until the end of proceedings. I am also afraid that when the Bill was in Committee last week, I was abroad on an unbreakable work engagement and so was unable to take part in the first two days. However, I have read the debate carefully and rise to speak with due humility. Having read the proceedings, I hope my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will not be disinclined to intervene—I enjoyed reading a large number of her interventions.
I say to the Committee how grateful I am to my noble friend the Minister for his openness and, through him, the willingness of his officials to discuss difficult issues. That needs to be put on record immediately. As my noble friend knows, I am a little concerned about where these proposals are intended to go—we could be bringing out a Dreadnought to deal with problems on the local public pond which, frankly, could be sorted out. I am grateful for the elucidation that my noble friend set out, but we need to understand a good bit more about how these regulations might work. For example, there is a requirement that the applicant must give written consent agreement. How many pages of regulations will there be to say in what terms that will be? Will it have to be legally sanctioned? When will it have to be delivered, et cetera? It says also that the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation before an order is made. How long will that take? With whom will it be? Will it be in an individual area or across the nation?
We all want to get development going more quickly. But my concern is that, in some circumstances—perhaps the noble Baroness opposite pointed to one when she talked about fear of flooding—pre-commencement conditions actually enable development to happen more quickly and with more consent, rather than, as is assumed, every council necessarily trying all the time to deter. I want to look very carefully at the detail of these proposals.
I am puzzled by the statement in subsection (2)(a) of the new section, to which the noble Lord opposite has referred, that the condition must be,
“necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”.
Make it acceptable to whom—to the local community, to the neighbourhood, to the people who will be affected or to the planning inspectorate in Bristol?
On the other hand, I cannot follow the noble Lord opposite—even though I understand where he is coming from—in proposing in his Amendment 37 setting up a mediation process. I spoke about this on the previous planning legislation we had before us, in which the Government set up a sort of national arbitration service concept. If one does not define this very closely, there is a risk that everything would automatically go to some sort of statutory arbitrator. That in itself could also clog up the system. With all the good will in the world, it may be that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord opposite is as guilty of causing potential obstacles as overregulation would.
I am not going to support any proposal that this provision be struck out—I see there is an amendment to that effect. I understand the Government’s concern to get development but we have not seen enough evidence. Between now and Report, and perhaps when my noble friend replies, we might get to understand a little better where and when the steel of a Dreadnought will be seen emerging from the department. I am a passionate localist: so much in recent planning legislation is about centralism and making things harder in the guise of getting development. I do not accept the view that local authorities are always against development. I look forward to hearing more from my noble friend, today and between now and Report, on the justification for these proposals.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I have serious concerns about Clause 12, particularly about subsections (2), (5) and (6) in new Section 100ZA on pages 10 and 11. The Government are going to have to rethink this very carefully because, as it stands, Clause 12 will cause more problems than it solves. We have heard many reasons for this, but I will go further. What discussions have been held with the Royal Town Planning Institute? I ask the Minister that because it has sent a briefing on the Bill which states, broadly speaking, that there are advantages to pre-commencement planning conditions:
“These have certain advantages to applicants who may not be in a position to finalise details of a scheme but wish to secure a planning permission as soon as possible. They have advantages to local authorities because councils may have in practice limited legal ability to enforce conditions once a scheme is underway. Conditions are useful to the development industry in general because they enable schemes to be permitted which otherwise might have to be refused”.
If they were refused it would take longer and, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, you may get faster and better planning decisions as a consequence of having pre-commencement conditions. Refusal of planning permission should, in general, be avoided because of all the complexities which are then introduced.
In telling the Committee what discussions the Government have had with the Royal Town Planning Institute, will the Minister explain what consideration they have given to the 15th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which was written substantially on the subject of Clause 12? It points out that,
“the national policy framework confirms that planning conditions should only be imposed where they meet six tests. They must be: necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise and reasonable in all other respects”.
So that already exists within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Paragraph 12 of the DPRRC report states that,
“the Government want to take this power because ‘there is evidence that some local planning authorities are imposing unnecessary and inappropriate planning conditions which do not meet the tests in national policy, resulting in delays to the delivery of new development’”.
There may well be such examples. If they do not meet the six tests, there is already a legal statutory requirement to demonstrate that the six tests are applied. But in paragraph 26 of the report, the DPRRC asked for,
“specific examples of pre-commencement conditions to help us understand the effect of subsection (5)”—
which my noble friend Lady Parminter talked about—because:
“None appeared to be included in the explanatory material accompanying the Bill”.
The committee had to ask the DCLG to provide a list of,
“details that developers have had to provide to local planning authorities before building works could begin”.
There are nine things on that list. With my long experience in local government, I can see a very good case for all nine of them. I will come back to this, with some practical examples of what goes wrong if you do not have pre-commencement planning conditions. But when I read that,
“installation of superfast broadband infrastructure”,
is not deemed to be required as a pre-commencement condition, I think this is wrong. We ought to have agreement on superfast broadband infrastructure, since within the next few years every part of the country is going to have it.
I will say more about this issue when we debate whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but it seems to me that if that is the extent of the problem, the things listed are not in themselves significant problems. I am really starting to think that Clause 12 is not a good clause. We will look at this further on Report, but at present I have to say that this clause will cause more problems than it solves.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in his masterly demolition of Clause 12. My first point concerns the notion of relevance. Clearly, the committee really struggled with notions of relevance and found itself quoting, in paragraph 13, the memorandum, which illustrated,
“examples of the types of condition that the proposed power would prohibit. They include: ‘those which may unreasonably impact on the deliverability of a development, those which place unjustifiable and disproportionate financial burdens on an applicant, or those which duplicate requirements to comply with other statutory regimes’”.
That could probably cover every single impact of every aspect of development. These are vague and general in the extreme, so no wonder the important conclusion of the committee was that it would be,
“inappropriate for the Government to be given a power which could be used to go well beyond the stated aims of the Bill”.
Were these regulations to be enacted, the committee recommended that,
“the affirmative procedure should apply to the exercise of the powers”.
Do the Government agree that if this clause stands, the affirmative procedure will indeed be adopted?
The Delegated Powers Committee, on which I had the honour to serve for many years, does not make such recommendations lightly. This is a very serious indictment and a very serious conclusion. Do the Government intend to accept that the affirmative procedure should apply in this case?
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I find these amendments very important and significant. If we are going to tackle the issue of regulation, it is terribly important that we get it right and that we tackle the real problems, not just theoretical problems or those identified by people who are discussing the issues at a rather remote level.
Let me be very direct: I live five miles outside Cockermouth, in the Lorton Valley. There is a tremendous debate going on at the moment about development in Cockermouth. It is not about whether the houses being built are liable to flooding; that is an issue, but it does not seem that they will be. However, people who have suffered terrible flooding experiences more than once in recent years now say that there is a risk that what is being done will contribute to the flooding of other people’s homes, because the drainage arrangements necessary for the number of houses being built are inadequate. This is a real issue and in our approach to it, we need to be careful and the Government need to take the points raised in these amendments seriously. This is affecting people now, and there is real anxiety. That anxiety is accentuated because in Cockermouth and the surrounding area, people are not convinced that the arrangements being made will prevent the repetition of flooding in future years. A great building programme is going ahead before the people directly affected have been assured that arrangements are in hand to meet the challenges that have arisen.
The issues raised this afternoon are crucial. I hope the Government will think hard about whether the clause is necessary and, if they are determined to go ahead with it, ensure that it meets the real issues that are affecting real people in real situations.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I speak with humility because I am not an expert in planning, but I do so because of the concern that this clause does not support the agenda of localism. My understanding is that if this clause stands, building may start before details have been agreed. Will my noble friend tell us what provision there is for local people to object to building once it commences? It seems to me that once building starts it is very hard to stop it rolling on and for local people to really have any input into whether it is acceptable. I also understand that pre-commencement conditions are one way to ensure appropriate design and quality, and that buildings are put in the right places. We have heard about drainage and flooding, but there is also the issue of whether these conditions enhance their local communities. I am concerned that this clause appears to load the dice against what local people may wish and I do not feel this is what we were elected for on our agenda of localism.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who participated in the discussion and debate on these non-government amendments—specifically my noble friends Lord True and Lady Hodgson, the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy, Lord Shipley and Lord Judd, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Andrews.
Before I address each of the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, I will make some generalised points about the position regarding pre-commencement conditions. The absence of pre-commencement conditions does not mean that one can start work automatically. The pre-commencement conditions, once agreed—or if there are none—enable the developer, for example, to raise finance and perhaps to put a construction team together with the security of knowing that he is likely to have permission, but it does not mean that the work will begin. Nor do the provisions of Clause 12 prevent local authorities with gumption—which is most of them, and many noble Lords here represent them—from agreeing conditions. It absolutely provides that conditions can be reached by agreement with the developers and this is what would happen in many cases. We make it absolutely clear that this is not preventing agreement between the parties, which I am sure would happen in the vast majority of cases.
Let me deal with the amendments in numerical order, if I may, so that I do not come to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, until later. I note that Amendment 29 was also tabled in Committee in the other place. The explanatory statement accompanying it explained that the intention, which was also made clear by the noble Lord, is to ensure a local voice in judging local circumstances and the impact of planning decisions. This intention is admirable, and it is absolutely the Government’s aim that the planning system remains centred on community involvement.
Subsection (1) is about ensuring that the well-established policy tests for conditions are adhered to. The proposed power for the Secretary of State to prescribe what kind of conditions may or may not be imposed, and in what circumstances, may only be exercised as provided by subsection (2) where such provision is appropriate for the purposes of ensuring any conditions imposed meet the policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework. Those tests are reflected in the wording of subsections 2(a) to (d) of new Section 100ZA, which means that the Secretary of State can only use this proposed regulation-making power to ensure that any condition imposed on a grant of planning permission seeks to make the development acceptable in planning terms—in other words, that it is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework —is relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally; is sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced; and is reasonable in all other respects. In other words, the Secretary of State may make provision in regulations only if such provisions are in pursuit of those policy tests.
For example, as set out in the Government’s consultation on these measures, we are considering prohibiting conditions that planning guidance already advises local planning authorities should not be imposed. These include conditions which unreasonably impact on the deliverability of a development, such as disproportionate financial burdens; which require the development to be carried out in its entirety; and which reserve outline application details. The Government have no intention of using this power to prohibit the use of any reasonable and necessary conditions that a local authority might seek to impose to achieve sustainable development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, including conditions relating to important matters such as archaeology and the natural environment. The Government believe it would be detrimental to the planning process for regulations made under new Section 100ZA(1) to provide for local authorities to make exceptions to the prohibition of the use of certain conditions. To do so would create uncertainty for applicants and additional bureaucracy.
In fact, during our consultation on this measure, local authorities agreed overwhelmingly that conditions should be imposed only if they passed each of the national policy tests. As an assurance for local authorities and other interested parties, subsection (3) of new Section 100ZA includes a requirement to carry out a public consultation before making regulations under subsection (1). It is fairly clear what a public consultation is, and if a national condition is being talked of you would expect a condition on a national basis. If it is more localised—one cannot generalise: cases may differ; they will not all be the same—it will be dealt with according to the law regarding public consultations. I may write to noble Lords to reassure them on how that issue will be addressed, but the Bill makes it clear that, in talking of a public consultation, there is no intention to make this exclusive, and the local authorities will certainly be involved. That will afford the opportunity for local views to be put forward as part of the process of determining how the power will be exercised.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Perhaps the Minister is going to deal with this issue later, but nobody here, including me, wants to impose a single unnecessary condition on any planning application. I would not do that, and nor would other noble Lords present. However, the Minister seems to be describing quite a bureaucratic process for the local planning authority, and I wonder whether he is creating more of a problem than the one he seeks to solve. What we have yet to hear from him is the list of all these councils and planning committees throughout the country that are creating all these conditions. I do not know where they are, and if this measure is so needed, I hope he will give us an extensive list of all the offenders and what they are doing. We have yet to hear that from the Minister or any of his colleagues.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I have covered only one amendment so far. I appreciate that the noble Lord is making a central point and I will seek to respond to it, and if there are other points that he wants to bring up towards the end of our consideration, I will be happy to deal with them.
On Amendment 31, I recognise that there are concerns around the impact on sustainable development, which is evidenced by the fact that this amendment was also put forward in Committee in the other place. However, I need to be explicitly clear that the clause is not aimed at conditions that are necessary to achieve sustainable development. I reassure the noble Lord that appropriate protections for important matters such as heritage, the natural environment and measures to mitigate the risk of flooding will be maintained. If the planning authority in question is unable to come to an agreement with the developer it is obviously the case, just as it is now, that planning permission will not be granted. What we are seeking to do is bear down on those conditions that we think are not appropriate and do not need protection.
It may help noble Lords if I give some background to the same issue when it was raised in Committee in the other place by Roberta Blackman-Woods MP, the honourable Member for the City of Durham, who was concerned about a situation where a condition prohibited by the Secretary of State makes the development acceptable in planning terms but makes it unacceptable in social, economic or environmental terms. The purpose of the planning system as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Sustainable development is recognised as being comprised of three distinct dimensions: economic, social and environmental. Each of these aspects is capable of being material in a planning decision. This amendment would remove a key element of new Section 100ZA(2) which ensures that the Secretary of State can make regulations only under subsection (1) in order to ensure that any conditions imposed are necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms. Subsection (2) is important as it constrains the power in subsection (1) so that it can be used only to ensure that any conditions imposed meet the well-established policy tests for conditions in the National Planning Policy Framework. To recap, paragraph 206 of the framework states:
“Planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects”.
This, as well as subsections (2)(b) to (d) are key safeguards to ensuring compliance with the policy tests, and I therefore believe that the amendment could run contrary to the noble Lord’s intention.
In addition, if by removing subsection (2)(a) noble Lords are seeking to ensure that conditions cannot be overlooked because they are unacceptable for other reasons, the existing drafting of subsection (2)(d) already adequately provides for this in its requirement for conditions to be reasonable in all other respects. Finally, as noble Lords are aware, before making regulations under subsection (1), as I have said, we are required to carry out a public consultation as set out in subsection (3). I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord True and others that perhaps it would be of assistance if I set out in a letter following today’s Committee session exactly how we expect the public consultation to play out, but it will give anyone with an interest an opportunity to be heard and for their views to be considered.
Lord Stunell (LD)
I wonder if either in that letter or perhaps in another one the Minister could set out to what extent the provisions of Clause 12 are or are not simply putting the National Planning Policy Framework on a statutory footing. Could he also set out whether to any extent it either goes beyond the framework or reduces from it?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, for that intervention. Obviously the National Planning Policy Framework stands independently from the Bill and I do not believe that any cross-reference is made in the legislation to the framework, but of course all planning decisions have to be made in accordance with it. I will deal with the point in the letter I will send round, but I think that all of the points which have been raised are covered in the National Planning Policy Framework as far as the Government are concerned and as far as the legislation allows.
Baroness Parminter
I am sorry to question the Minister, but can he confirm that in that consultation only 44% supported going ahead with the proposals? If so, that is a clear minority.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
From memory, I think that the noble Baroness is correct, although that is a majority of those who have a view—there were quite a few who ticked “don’t know”. As I have indicated, it was a majority—admittedly a bare majority—of those who gave a view: more than half offered either complete support or supported the principle. However, I will make sure that a link to that document is available for noble Lords.
I assure noble Lords that I recognise the intention of Amendment 37. We of course have to make sure that where agreements cannot be reached, a sensible solution can be found. However, there are a number of reasons why a dedicated mediation system, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is not necessary and, indeed, may be counterproductive. As I have made clear, Clause 12 builds on best practice as set out in our planning practice guidance, which states that applicants and local authorities should engage at the earliest possible stage to come to an agreement on the conditions to be applied on a grant of planning permission. I am sure all noble Lords recognise and appreciate the importance of early and sustained engagement to help facilitate a constructive dialogue on the use of conditions. Let me hasten to underline that that is, I think, what happens in the vast majority of cases. The measures here will help to ensure that this takes place.
Existing routes are available to both local authorities and applicants in the unlikely event that there is disagreement on the conditions proposed. If a developer refuses to agree with a particular condition and the local authority deems it necessary, having considered it against the criteria set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, the authority can, and indeed should, refuse to grant planning permission. Nothing could be clearer, and that is the position the Government wish to stress. That is the intention of the legislation going forward; it is not to alter the basic provision that decisions are reached locally. Provided that they are in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework, it is appropriate that, if the local authority cannot agree with the developer and there are relevant considerations in the framework, it should turn down the application.
At present, applicants would still have the ability to appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision to grant planning permission which is subject to conditions that they disagree with. Further to this, we consulted on our proposal to specify a default period after which the agreement of the applicant would be deemed to be given. Following the response to this consultation, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to introduce a 10-working-day default period. This could also act as a further incentive for parties to engage earlier in the process and discuss conditions that may be imposed on a grant of planning permission. We must acknowledge that adding a further formal step in the process by way of mediation could cause delays—here I find myself in agreement with my noble friend Lord True. In addition, it could actually discourage effective discussions between applicants and local authorities, who may simply wait, knowing that there is the safety net—as they may see it—of the mediation route as an alternative to meaningful engagement at an earlier stage. I hope noble Lords agree that encouraging local authorities and developers to work together to overcome any barriers to delivering the homes that the country needs is the most important step.
Lord True
My Lords, I will briefly intervene—it will be brief because I am enormously grateful for the very full answer given by my noble friend. I am grateful for what he said about clarifying “public consultation” and I agree with a number of things he said.
This point was made by others on the first day in Committee, and I will not go over it again, but this is a Neighbourhood Planning Bill. It is about getting things built, but built with consent, which is the trick one has to take. My concern is if a developer says, “I am not agreeing to any conditions of that sort—you can us refuse permission and we will see you in Bristol”. That is not empowering local people in any way. As my noble friend Lady Hodgson said, the risk is that that will happen, because if the developer decides that it does not want to agree, it is almost fast-tracked to the inspector whatever the local authority does, and that is not necessarily building consent into the system.
Perhaps the Government can wrestle with this point over the next few weeks. There really does not have to be any form of incentive in the law for responsible developers not to co-operate. For example, many local authorities have to deal with developers which have not discharged previous planning conditions—they have just ignored them and nothing is done. Someone comes along and says, “I am going to build here”. You see these people and say, “You have not discharged your previous conditions, so let us write something in here to make sure that you are okay this time”. They then say, “We are not agreeing, we are not signing on there”, so it goes through, but does the inspector always take account? I beg my noble friend, as he considers these things further, not to rig the system too far.
The second cautionary thing I would say, having listened very carefully to what my noble friend said about the phrase “acceptable in planning terms”—which does trouble me—is that I understand from my noble friend that the Government cannot rock along and say, “We’ll have a 24-hour casino on that site, thank you very much”, and that it is about restricting the proposed ambit of the planning. This seems eminently justiciable because it does not refer to the national framework at all, as my noble friend pointed out. So if a little local campaign group is armed with a neighbourhood plan or the local development plan, and the Government come in and say, “We are putting forward this regulation to make it acceptable in planning terms and, by the way, by that we mean the NPPF”, the Little Ditchcombe Action Group might say, “It is not acceptable in planning terms, or in accordance with what we have in the neighbourhood plan that we have agreed, or what has been put in the local development plan”, and you could find yourself in the courts—I do not mean my noble friend in particular.
We need to be very careful about how this phrase is defined—many a lawyer and many a judge would have a high old time and earn a few bob in deciding what that phrase means. It is only the second cautionary thing I would say and I very much welcome the spirit and terms of the clause. I accept the way in which my noble friend said that the Government were coming at it, but they need to be careful. There should not be too many more eggs in the developer’s basket and there should be as much definition as possible—please—before Report. With that, I will stop detaining the Committee.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I agree with almost everything the noble Lord, Lord True, has just said. I thank the Minister for his very full response, which is much appreciated. I agree with him—I do not want any conditions imposed, including those he termed “necessary”, “relevant”, “enforceable”, or “reasonable”. I think everybody in the Committee will be in agreement with that—there is no problem there whatever. He also said that these pre-commencement conditions are not necessary. That is good to hear, but I worry that at the end of the day this will all be either so vague that it will not make any difference or so detailed that it will threaten sustainable development. I am not clear about what I have heard from the Minister. I hope he will respond to us in his letter about where we are going because I certainly want to see development take place that is sustainable, that we learn from the lessons of the past and that we get things built properly.
I may have misheard him, but will these discussions between the planning authority and a developer or an applicant take 10 days—someone else may have said that—and if not, how long should that go on for? He is determined but, as the noble Lord, Lord True, said, the risk is that nothing is agreed and that everything goes straight off to the appeals process. That is not delivering development by consent—certainly not sustainable development and not development that is in accordance with the local neighbourhood plan, or the local development plan. I live in London, as the noble Lord, Lord True, does. Certainly, in my own ward we are developing a neighbourhood plan and we are putting hours and hours of work into that. It seems daft that if we agree something, we could then find it all just pushed to one side. I do not know what the Minister can say now, but I certainly look forward to seeing his letter.
In a moment we will debate whether Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s letter because we have still not had the list of rogue authorities. At the moment, I am convinced that the clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We have had one or two problems with plugs and things but these are not massive. If there were these problems, the noble Lord would have listed them in his contribution; maybe they will be in his letter, which I look forward to.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord True for his response. Yes, it is the intention of the Government and I think we have demonstrated that we are keen on consensus in this area. We want to give power to neighbourhood planning; that is the essence of this legislation. However, we do not want to hamper developers and, therefore, housebuilding—which is central to all our aims—with unnecessary pre-commencement conditions. As I have indicated, it is absolutely right that these conditions can, and in many cases should, be agreed between an applicant and the authority. But we do not want to prescribe from the centre situations where this has to be the case. I will seek to enlarge on that in the letter I am writing. I will also, in relation to the plea from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seek to give further evidence of the unreasonableness of some pre-commencement conditions, because that lies at the root of why we are seeking to bring in these powers. I ask noble Lords not to move their amendments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I oppose Clause 12 standing part of the Bill. We have just heard how controversial this clause is. It is nothing to do with neighbourhood planning; it is all about the Secretary of State and the Government taking additional powers at the centre and issuing instructions to local authorities. Nothing I heard in the previous debate changed my mind on that. What lies at the heart of all this? It is a misguided notion that planning departments and planning committees—local authorities—are holding up development, not approving applications and generally being the root of the problem. That is nonsense. As I said before, I have served on a planning committee for many years and our planning department is certainly not sitting there deliberately not approving developments. The Committee has still not been given the evidence of all these problems; we await the letter.
No noble Lord present would dispute that we have a glut of planning permissions already approved in certain parts of the country. This is certainly the case in London and the south-east. I can walk around Lewisham, where I live, and see many applications that I have approved as a member of the committee and very little has happened. Once, in my own ward, nothing happened except a sign going up saying, “Permission to build x houses”.
We do have a problem with land-banking—people holding on to land, looking at its value but not moving forward. Again, I have never known a developer come forward to any committee I have sat on, either in Lewisham or when I was a member of Southwark Council, to suggest that the conditions the council was seeking to impose were somehow going to hold up its development. It was never suggested, in either authority, that we were a hindrance to development. I just do not see that that is the problem that the Government suggest it is. I contend further that some conditions can be positive in enabling things to get under way and agreed quickly, with the local authority and the developer or builder concerned moving forward in a collaborative way.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I gave notice of my intention to oppose Clause 12 and I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Indeed, the response from the Minister to what I thought was a reasonable proposal to bring forward an exemption for conditions that are clearly reasonable has strengthened my resolve to support any move to delete the whole clause.
The reasons for that are twofold. I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but one thing pre-commencement conditions do is overcome the situation at the moment whereby developers are paying the cost when it comes to pre-commencement conditions but the benefits are borne by other people—normally the local community or the environment, or through biodiversity benefits. Without pre-commencement conditions, of course the developer will say, “We don’t want to bear these costs”. Pre-commencement conditions account for those benefits—those externalities—and allow local planning authorities to ensure that those benefits that accrue to others can be accounted for.
In the Minister’s letter on what the unreasonable pre-commencement conditions are, will he also include a list of what are, in his mind, reasonable conditions? It seems to me that drainage is very much a reasonable condition, given that the benefits are accrued by home owners and the community but the costs are borne by the developer.
The second reason I am now more minded to support the opposition to Clause 12 builds on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord True. The Minister says that we will want local authorities, if they have the gumption, to turn these applications down. But let us consider a housing application for, say, 20 homes in a rural area. Let us say that a fairly reasonable, as I would see it, pre-commencement condition is attached for sustainable draining solutions but the developer does not agree. Those houses have agreement in the local plan and the neighbourhood plan. Is the Minister saying that this Government want local authorities to turn down applications that have the support of the local plan and the neighbourhood plan because they cannot get agreement on a perfectly reasonable proposal —in this case for drainage—that is part of a pre-commencement condition? That is what the Minister said. This is the nuclear option. If the local authority does not get agreement from the developer for sustainable drainage systems, the only option it has is to turn it down. That will increase delays and conflict in the system, which the Bill is rightly trying to stop. If we want to build homes, it seems to me that this nuclear option will not deliver what the Government want. Therefore, I support the proposal that Clause 12 should not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I too oppose the question that Clause 12 stand part of the Bill. I have been tedious beyond endurance and I thank the Committee for its patience. At each stage I have tried very hard to ensure that there is a separation between the powers of the Secretary of State and the responsibilities of local authorities, working with their local communities. I share the deep concern of the Delegated Powers Committee, which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned. It has deep reservations. We must be careful not to brush away the work of that committee and the recommendations it makes, because it is the watchdog for our legislative processes and thoughts and what we bring forward. I was interested that my noble friend the Minister said that he will take real cognisance of what it has been saying and will try to meet those concerns.
One of the things that surprises me in all of this is that the legislation that the Neighbourhood Planning Bill is based on is the Localism Act. We know that this concept has been warmly welcomed by so many who have embraced neighbourhood plans, and we know that there are many more in the pipeline. In reply to an amendment last Tuesday, the Minister told the Committee that the Secretary of State’s,
“current policies for intervention strike the right balance between the national interest and local autonomy”.—[Official Report, 31/1/17; col. GC 176.]
I have to say that in my area the experience was to the contrary. There was no planning issue of national importance and yet the Secretary of State intervened, with devastating results.
However, I am encouraged by my noble friend’s reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, when the Committee met last Thursday. He quoted his honourable friend Gavin Barwell as having said that,
“as long as authorities have policies to address their strategic housing and other priorities, we want them to have more freedom in the type of plan that is most appropriate for their area. The Government have put local and neighbourhood plans at the heart of the planning system. We put local authorities and communities at the forefront of shaping a vision for their areas and deciding how to meet their development needs. The existing regime reflects the understanding that local planning authorities, together with local communities, are best placed to set out future development for their local area”.—[Official Report, 2/2/17; col. GC 261.]
I say amen to that. That is absolutely what we want. That is what we are trying to achieve through this Bill.
I have referred almost exclusively to the Secretary of State and sometimes the ministerial team. But this is not personal and I want to get on the record how much I appreciate my noble friend Lord Bourne’s approach to the handling of the Bill. He has said he will listen and—I have to say, with great patience—he has. He has said time and again, “We will work with noble Lords in an inclusive way”, and he has and is doing so. He has asked for positive engagement. We are willing. Like Barkis, we are more than willing. I sense my noble friend is also willing to negotiate worthwhile amendments to improve the Bill. I welcome that and I look forward to his useful amendments when we come to Report.
I turn to Clause 12 specifically. As I have previously said, seeking that a whole clause should not stand part of the Bill gives noble Lords an opportunity to see the clause as a whole. My concern with the totality of this clause is that, contrary to what I am trying to achieve and what my honourable friend Gavin Barwell has said in another place, it does nothing to separate the powers of the Secretary of State from the responsibilities of the local planning authorities. My noble friend Lord True, whom I thank for his kind comments, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that the clause does not mention neighbourhood planning at all. In addition, the whole clause is about the Secretary of State’s determination to control the work of local planners. The tenor of this clause is therefore that the Secretary of State does not trust the people. He does not trust local planners, who know the area best.
New subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State unlimited powers to waive conditions that may be very inappropriate to particular areas and populations. Again, therefore, we see the heavy hand that continues through nine new subsections, and the point of the Bill is quietly buried; it has nothing to do with neighbourhood planning. Surely the imperative is for local planning authorities to deliver the strategic policies of the Secretary of State, but apparently that is not enough.
I very much respect people who are on local authorities at the moment. When I read about them and look at what they are doing, it seems that they are working their socks off to deliver what is needed. But apparently, this is not enough, and the Secretary of State says that he must come in and tell them what to do and how. Therefore, as the Minister is fully aware, in our area there is total disillusionment with the neighbourhood planning process and fury at the intervention—the interference—in the minutiae of local planning from above.
The Minister went through all the new subsections in Clause 12, and I thank him for his full explanation. However, he did not address the issue: why is this clause necessary? Why does the Secretary of State risk antagonising local planners on a whim, removing planning conditions? Why does this require intervention by the Secretary of State? Planning pre-commencement conditions are important. They ensure the quality of development and its empathy with the local area. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, put it so well, saying that this is the essence of planning.
I was involved in a case years ago, in which 171 identical houses were to be built along a snake-like road. We turned that down, fought appeals and won them. We now have a development that has open spaces and all sorts of different housing: bungalows, terraced housing, and detached four-bedroom houses. It is a lovely area, and so different to what it would have been like if we had agreed to the original application. Conditions are important, because those are the ones we put in and which we eventually managed to get.
It is therefore about the quality of development. I pay tribute to the forensic way the Minister took us through the different new subsections. However, it is not good enough. We are losing the whole principle of neighbourhood planning and localism. I very much look forward to the letter that my noble friend will send, and I sense that there is already some rethinking on how this clause and the new subsections need to be amended. However, I urge him to go further. Can he be brave, and in his letter give us some hope that this clause may be deleted altogether? It is irrelevant in the Bill.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I have come to the conclusion that Clause 12 should be deleted from the Bill. I now see no grounds for it being continued with, because the evidence has not been satisfactorily produced. It comes down to this: developers want to build and sell houses, and residents want to enjoy living in them. Sometimes those two objectives are not compatible because builders can often not do what residents expected of them.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I am confused. I thought the Committee was talking about pre-commencement planning conditions—which are required to be discharged before the building commences—not other conditions that may have to be complied with during the course of building.
Lord Shipley
I do not know whether the noble Lord has read paragraph 26 of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but it says:
“We wanted to see some specific examples of pre-commencement conditions to help us understand the effect of subsection (5)”.
This was commented on by my noble friend Lady Parminter. The DCLG gave a list, setting out,
“details that developers have had to provide to local planning authorities before building works could begin”,
the first of which is,
“full details of a play area”.
I cannot see what the problem is with a builder telling the local planning authority where the play area will be and what will be on it. Secondly, there is a complaint—
Lord Lansley
It is not my job to defend what the DCLG is saying, but if that is treated as a pre-commencement planning condition then it would be objectionable. If it was simply a condition applied to the consent, to be pursued in the course of building, it would be perfectly okay.
Lord Shipley
As the noble Lord might understand, the problem is that once building has started it is much more difficult to get agreement on some of these details. The point that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has drawn to our attention is that there is nothing to prevent a builder telling us what the full details of the play area are planned to be. Indeed, if I was buying the property I might want to know that, because I might have children who would be interested in using it.
The details of all lighting on the development, including siting, design and lux levels, are seen as unnecessary pre-commencement conditions. They are not. As I mentioned, the installation of superfast broadband infrastructure is central to a housing development. There are others. I noticed,
“the full details of soft landscaping”.
Yes please: these are important. When a developer has sold all the houses on a site, it is much more difficult to get the soft landscaping put in to the standard that it should be. Also,
“precise location of bin collection points for specific plots”,
is seen to be an unnecessary pre-commencement condition. If you are living there, it may be that no one told you that you would have to take your wheelie bin 50 metres to the collection point because the bin lorry cannot turn round. Some of these are real-life examples. We need to be very careful when criticising local planning authorities for having set conditions that they think matter.
Because this is based on the complaints of housebuilders, will the Minister, when he replies in the letter we will be sent, copy in the replies to the letter the department sent to all the local authorities about these complaints to get their view on whether they felt builders’ complaints were justified? I very much hope that the department has taken on board the views not just of builders, but of the local authorities concerned.
I do not wish to detain the Committee any further, but the case for Clause 12 is no longer proven. As things stand, I do not think this can form part of the Bill any longer.
Lord Lansley
First, I apologise to the Committee: like my noble friend I was unable to attend the Committee last Thursday because I was abroad, but last Tuesday, while noble Lords were meeting here, I chaired a workshop that the Cambridgeshire Development Forum —once again, I declare my position as its chair—held with planning officers from Cambridge City and South Cambs councils. It considered a wide range of issues. I thought it important to talk to planning officers directly, not least to inform some of my contributions to our debates.
I want to speak because built into the structure of Clause 12—I address my remarks in particular to new subsection (5)—is the intention that best practice should be consolidated in a way that is likely to help us in our objective of building more houses more successfully and more speedily. What it comes down to is this: my colleagues on the forum and I spent a lot of time last year finding out some ways the planning process could be improved. Of 30 areas this was just one—it was not necessarily even the most important one, but it was important. There was a recognition among those in the development sector locally that there are issues with the way planning conditions are constructed. Conditions are imposed that are often non-compliant with the test that they should be imposed only where they are necessary and relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, and where they are enforceable, precise and reasonable. None of us wants to end up with unnecessary appeals because of excessive or inappropriate conditions. That delays everything and increases costs for everybody.
I am prompted also by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. He talked about conditions generally. Here we are talking specifically about pre-commencement planning conditions. There is a considerable problem, which I can see in the evidence the Government have given, in that if one has too many unnecessary pre-commencement planning conditions, the risk is that the discharge of those conditions will add to the delay. In fact, when one asks developers, as I have, it is often the issues associated with the discharge of those conditions that create more problems for development than agreement to them in the first place.
However, best practice is very clear. Joint working is what everyone should aim at, so as to reach the point where the committee making the decision can see what the agreement between the developers, the applicants and the local planning authority is likely to look like. It is a necessary part of informing members of the character of the decision they should be making. What we do not want is to allow some of the things that inhibit best practice—arising, for example, from planning officers’ inexperience. It was made clear that inexperienced planning officers simply load in conditions because they think that is the way to cover their backs. Experienced planning officers get their conditions right in the first place, so we want to encourage a process in which experienced officers negotiate and agree conditions with applicants.
We want to encourage applicants, which this legislation would do, to take the initiative and propose draft conditions. Obviously, those conditions should in large measure be standard conditions, and the structure of the legislation will encourage the use of such conditions, which should expedite matters. It will also inhibit the prospect of some of kind of last-minute ambush in the committee, because the conditions must necessarily be agreed with the applicant or the application must be referred back. If they are not agreed they can be refused, so I am not sure I understand the argument that authorities would be hesitant about refusing an application where a pre-commencement planning condition has been sought that is supported by planning policy in the NPPF. Why would they not refuse it when it is their job to pursue the appropriate response to an application that does not meet those criteria?
Baroness Parminter
The noble Lord is challenging my view. There is a real risk that a local authority will not refuse an application for 20 homes in a rural area, to use the example I quoted earlier. It will have the approval of the local plan and the neighbourhood plan, but the sustainable drainage option proposal that it can get the developer’s agreement to is for a weak tank underneath the ground, whereas what it actually wants is a sustainable solution that will enhance the housing development in the way described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—one that is to the long-term benefit of the area and will increase biodiversity. The developer will not agree to that; it will agree only to a tank under the ground, which is perfectly reasonable under the standards we have at the moment. The local authority might want to go that step further but it cannot. Should the entire application then be turned down—as I say, it has the approval of the local plan, the neighbourhood plan and local people—because the developer will not agree to the sustainable drainage option? That will increase the delay. Local authorities will not do this because of the risks. They will say, “Okay, we will accept the weaker proposals”.
Lord Lansley
The noble Baroness has constructed her own example, and I understand the point she is making. It seems to me that this legislation does not change the situation at all. At present, if it cannot agree the condition it is looking for with the applicants, it will refuse the application and the applicants will go to appeal. I do not see why on earth the situation will be any different after this legislation is introduced. To that extent, I do not see how the legislation causes any harm. On the contrary, it promotes on the part of the applicants the need to draft planning conditions with a view to seeking agreement. Moreover, this promotes not only best practice, as I said, but an expectation on the part of both the applicants and the local planning authority—both officers and members—that the conditions should be standard and/or drafted at the point at which the decision is made.
Another issue is conditions being drafted after the committee meeting has taken place, which can cause considerable delay. What new subsection (5) is driving towards is for best practice to be encapsulated in legislation and for there to be an expectation via a written agreement that the parties to the application and the local planning authority will get together and produce an agreement to put before the committee. That is entirely laudable and I am very sorry that Members of the Committee want to throw this rather important and useful baby out with the bathwater.
Lord True
My noble friend makes a strong point but I do not agree with him, I fear. I am not going to repeat the points I made on the previous amendment. The problem with new subsection (5) is that it effectively gives a veto to the developer and therefore a power, which may or may not be a good thing.
However, my noble friend made a good point in relation to, for example, a play area. We all understand that the wonderful civil servants who work for my noble friend are trying to do a reductio ad absurdum of what might happen, so they find a council that has said, “Oh yes, the play area has to have one of those spring things instead of a see-saw”. We all know that that would be ridiculous. Maybe it has happened. But there are things on that list, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, that are actually quite important and germane. Anyone who has been on a planning committee trying to secure development in suburban or rural areas will know that lighting is one of the most fiercely contested things that local residents care about most. It is also one of the most difficult things to control.
No doubt some things on that list are silly. Perhaps my own authority is one of the bad authorities. We have occasionally have had a run-in with the people who want to put in boxes for broadband, not because we are against it but because they come and say, “We want to bang this box right in front of a grade 1 listed building”, instead of agreeing to put it a little further down the road, and they rush off and have dinner with the Chancellor and the Chancellor says, “This is ridiculous. We must have legislation”. This is the way the world works. We all know that.
Somewhere in the middle of all this is a sensible via media. Saying that you cannot develop until you put a Big Ears statue in would be completely ridiculous. But some of these other things are best dealt with at an early stage. Drainage is obviously a good one, as are sustainability and lighting. The problem with this goes back to my analogy right at the start—the old Dreadnought thing. Time and again, we poor local authorities face legislation in the dock—always local authorities, never the statutory undertakings, never the builders with the land banks. Only the local authority is to blame because the local authority is perhaps trying to reflect some of the opinions of its local people by whom it is elected. We are always put in the dock and the Dreadnought is brought out to deal with the silly local authority which says, “I must have a Big Ears statue before I give any permission to 150 homes”. Of course the Government want to deal with that.
I have an open mind on this clause, as I said, although I hear what my noble friend Lady Cumberlege has said and I do care about neighbourhood planning. Surely there must be a way through that is not just nationalising this massive power to deliver for the exceptions that are causing problems. Surely it must be possible between now and Report, with the spirit that my noble friend the Minister has displayed, to find a way to give the Government a power to deal with the authority that wants Big Ears before there can be a development, without actually taking away the ability of local authorities and neighbourhoods to protect what they think is important and have development with consent. That is all I ask for. If Clause 12 can find a way to do that, let us look at it. At the moment, it does need amendment. We will see what happens between now and Report.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for being absent during the discussion of the previous group, and the very beginning of this group. I am afraid I have had to return from a funeral; otherwise, what I am about to say now I would have said in the debate on Amendment 43A, to which I added my name.
As the Committee will recall, Amendment 43A reflects the recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee in paragraph 22 of its recently produced report, which came out on 27 January, dealing with the way the Government propose to exercise the delegated powers contained in the Bill, as set out in a document published last December under the intriguing title Further Information on How the Government Intends to Exercise the Bill’s Delegated Powers. Five areas were identified in respect of which the intention is to rely on secondary legislation. For this afternoon’s purposes, we are of course dealing essentially with the planning conditions in Clause 12. However, there are other issues: Clauses 1 to 5 are on neighbourhood planning, Clauses 6 to 11 are on local development documents, Clause 13 is on the planning register and Clauses 14 to 36 are on compulsory purchase. Therefore, although the Delegated Powers Committee drew attention to a series of matters, today we are dealing with the relevant provisions under Clause 12, which I suspect is in any event probably one of the more controversial clauses.
As we have heard, the Bill vests the Secretary of State with powers by regulation to prevent authorities imposing particular types of planning conditions in any circumstances at all or only in particular circumstances, as prescribed by the Government, and to stipulate that no conditions at all are to be imposed on particular types of grants of permission. The Government’s explanation of this was that,
“there is evidence that some local planning authorities”—
number and identity not disclosed—
“are imposing unnecessary and inappropriate planning conditions which do not meet the tests in national policy, resulting in delays to the delivery of new development”.
It is of course interesting that the Government make no mention of the hundreds of thousands of houses for which planning permission has been given but of which not a brick has been laid. They concentrate only on other potential problems.
The Government have admitted that,
“the power to prescribe the circumstances where conditions may or may not be imposed and to set out the descriptions of such conditions is wide”.
They concede that, but conclude that a delegation is appropriate. The committee expressed concern that the power would,
“allow the Secretary of State to prescribe conditions in relation to any type of planning conditions when the key aims of the Bill are to facilitate the building of new homes”,
and expressed surprise that no reason for this was given. Some of us would argue that even in respect of new homes it goes too far, but to make it more general and part of any planning permission seems beyond the scope of what the Bill is supposed to be about.
The committee stated at paragraph 16:
“We consider it inappropriate for the Government to be given a power which could be used to go well beyond the stated aims of the Bill”,
and recommended that it should apply,
“only to planning conditions for housing developments”.
It went on to criticise the proposed replacement of the existing power to provide guidance discouraging the imposition of unreasonable conditions with a power to prohibit such conditions completely, without any opportunity for the relevant planning authority to justify those conditions. Furthermore, the Government have expressed their intention to exercise the Bill’s delegated powers, including draft regulations specifying five types of condition that will be prohibited. The committee points out that there would be,
“nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from using the new power to prohibit many more conditions”,
so we are not necessarily just being confined to five areas. This would give carte blanche to introduce further prohibitions in the future.
Unsurprisingly, and in common with so much legislation, including the Housing and Planning Act, which we spent so much time on last year—the fate of which may be somewhat altered, one hopes, by the housing White Paper that is about to emerge—the committee states that,
“the negative procedure is not an adequate level of Parliamentary scrutiny for the exercise of these new powers, which could substantially restrict the ability of local planning authorities to attach conditions to the grant of any type of planning permission”.
It recommends that the affirmative procedure should apply to proposed new Section 100ZA(1).
The committee goes on to express concerns in relation to proposed new Section 100ZA(5) to (7), which deal with pre-commencement conditions: the controversial provisions which forbid planning permission being subject to such conditions without—extraordinarily —the written consent of the applicant. That is a significant change in the law and a significant move away from the local planning authority to individual developers. But no illustrations of such conditions are included in what passes for the explanatory material provided with the Bill. Although, as I understand it, the committee was provided with some at its request. It is extraordinary that in a matter as controversial as this, the explanatory material completely overlooked the issue. Under the Government’s scheme, in only one case will it be possible to impose such a condition: when the applicant fails to reply within 10 days of receiving notice of a proposed condition. The committee was concerned that there is no duty to consult before making regulations in relation to these provisions and said that,
“the Secretary of State should be required to consult not only developers but also local planning authorities and other interested parties”.
It recommends in paragraph 30 of its report that,
“the Secretary of State should be required to consult before making regulations under subsection (6)”.
If the suggested amendment is made, the Delegated Powers Committee will be content with the negative procedure. If not, it recommends the affirmative procedure.
I do not know what the Minister’s response was—I take it this issue would not have been raised in the opening debate—but I understand he has indicated that there will be a further response to the Delegated Powers Committee. However, I hope he is able to take back the view—which I think will be widely shared by this Committee, across any political divide—that it is simply not good enough to rely again on the use of a negative procedure on important matters of this kind. It has happened far too often and has been the subject of many reports, Bills and committees in your Lordships’ House, and yet the Government seem to ignore all the doubts and objections and continue to use—or propose to use—the negative procedure for dealing with highly controversial matters. The Minister is not able, alas, to change this with the stroke of his pen, but I hope he will convey what I think will be the view of many in this Committee, across the political divide, that this is not a satisfactory way to proceed, particularly as we are dealing with a significant change in the planning regime.
I hope the Minister will take back the strong views that have been expressed and that by the time we get to Report, we will see some Government amendments. Otherwise, I envisage that there will be amendments on Report from across the House seeking to test the House’s opinion on whether the Government should be allowed to get away with what many of us consider—and clearly what the Delegated Powers Committee considers—to be an abuse of process.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, this afternoon we have heard a lot of concerns expressed by those who serve or have served our local authorities about the practical consequences of this clause. I want to draw attention to a press release that was on the Planning Portal website, which was published on behalf of the British Property Federation jointly with the Planning Officers Society about this very issue during the passage of the Bill in the other place. I will not read the whole press release because I am sure the Minister will be able to read it for himself, but it draws out some particularly important points, which have perhaps not been reflected in the debate so far.
The press release says:
“The British Property Federation and the Planning Officers Society have advised that current legislative proposals set out in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill do not allow enough flexibility … They have warned that current legislative proposals set out in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill do not allow enough flexibility to account for local circumstances. There is a risk that the measures will delay the planning process further by pushing contentious decisions into the time-consuming negotiation of section 106 requirements”.
The British Property Federation chief executive said:
“Streamlining the use of planning conditions could herald a welcome acceleration for development, and we support government efforts to ensure that their abuse doesn’t pose an unnecessary barrier to delivering the new homes and real estate that are essential to people’s everyday lives. However, clear and appropriate conditions are an essential part of achieving good place making, and developers and planning officers are in agreement that a more flexible approach, with best practice guidance and a clear appeals route, would better serve this objective. With local authority resources already stretched, now is not the time to risk making a time-consuming process even more onerous”.
That sums up the case that Members across the Committee are making. It is being made on behalf of both the developers and the planners—we have heard from Committee Members who see it from a local authority, practical planning perspective. I hope that the Minister will closely reflect on what is being said.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene. I am not an expert on planning and I have never served on a local planning authority, but I have been involved from the other side, the side of the applicant—not big developments but small developments in villages and so on—so I probably see this slightly differently.
I am on my feet because I cannot quite see why all the conditions and the problems that have been mentioned by noble Lords—drainage, lighting and so on—cannot be dealt with, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, suggested, in the pre-decision planning conditions. In other words, in the normal planning agreement, you work with the planning authority to determine under exactly what conditions the planning permission will be granted, but surely Clause 12 is not about planning conditions; it is about a situation when all the conditions have to be implemented before the building starts. That is where the delay seems to be, and the clause seems to me quite reasonable.
I realise that the problem is probably the financing of planning departments, which do not have the resources to deal with all the issues prior to giving or not giving planning permission. To some extent, pre-commencement conditions are added after the council has decided on an application because there may not have been the resources to deal properly with the application before that point. The local planning authority also may not have the resources to check during the building of the development that all the conditions that had originally been agreed to are being met. In other words, the only way in which this can be done simply is to do it pre-commencement, so that applicants have to apply before they can start building. It is a cheap route out of a particular problem.
I am not an expert on planning, as I said, but it seems to me that there is a difference between ordinary planning conditions and pre-commencement planning conditions. As someone who has applied, I know that sometimes pre-commencement planning conditions delay the scheme and can be, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, described, an ambush—suddenly new conditions are added after the planning conditions and all the terms have been agreed to. However, I am not sure why all noble Lords’ concerns are so targeted against the pre-commencement conditions.
Lord Stunell
My Lords, I would like Clause 12 to be taken out of the Bill. It is unsatisfactory because it is written so broadly. Under subsections (1) and (2), the Secretary of State is in a position to do practically anything as long as it is a prescribed description, but subsection (9) says that,
“‘prescribed’ means prescribed by the Secretary of State”.
So there is no limitation on the Secretary of State’s capacity to change the current planning system, not simply the pre-commencement conditions, although that has been the immediate focus of the debate.
Although the clause is widely drawn, for the Minister it clearly has a much more limited intention. I asked a question to see whether I could establish exactly what that limited intention was. On the face of it, from what the Minister has told us this afternoon, it is intended simply to ensure that the National Planning Policy Framework is the bedrock on which all planning decisions are made; in other words, to make the NPPF in effect a statutory document. If that was his intention, it could have been expressed much more clearly by a clause that would be fundamentally different from Clause 12 and be something we could debate the pros and cons of much more satisfactorily. If, on the other hand, it is intended to inhibit or prevent local authorities imposing conditions that would otherwise be in conformity with the NPPF, he needs to go to greater length to explain why the Government believe the NPPF needs to be trimmed back a bit.
I hope the Minister can see that if the NPPF is the reference, it would be useful if it was referred to in some way in the Bill, particularly in this clause. It is beginning to look as though his letter will be as long as the National Planning Policy Framework, which, incidentally, comes in at 59 pages, two of which are a list of the 44 codes of practice that it supersedes, which themselves were about 1,000 pages long. By the time we have some regulations to say exactly what we mean as a result of Clause 12, we will begin to unravel the NPPF.
There is a fundamental disconnect between what is in the Bill and what the Minister says its intention is. When I saw the Government’s amendments, I thought we were going to see something helpful, but I noticed that five of the amendments in the previous group were to insert the word “relevant” before the phrase “planning conditions”. One wonders a little whether one needed that word added. It is good that it has been, but can we just have the answer to the philosophical intent of the clause relating to planning as a whole and to pre-commencement conditions?
At Second Reading I mentioned that the National Planning Policy Framework—which is now treated as though it had originally been carved in stone at the top of Mount Sinai—had quite a troubled birth, with version one going around the Government for preapproval before it went out to consultation from the Department for Communities and Local Government, in which I was at the time a junior Minister. It came back from the Treasury with red ink all over it. It could not go out until the amendments the Treasury required had been made. Of course, there was uproar when it went public. In particular, the National Trust organised a very vigorous campaign against it. It turned out that the National Trust is the good cause of choice for a large number of Conservative Party members, who proceeded to let their Conservative Members of Parliament know about their dissatisfaction. One way or another, the consultation resulted in a completely different document coming forward, which was very similar to the document that had been drawn up and altered by the Treasury in the first place.
I rather fear that Clause 12 is another NPPF, except that we are at only the middle point, where something quite sensible has been turned into something that is not nearly so sensible and is fundamentally threatening many of the safeguards that the final version of the NPPF established so clearly, in particular the three pillars of sustainability when there is consideration of a planning application. Originally, I thought that the department had had the same experience this time that it had with the NPPF—it had gone off to the Treasury, which had put some red ink on it. But I realise that the current Secretary of State in the Department for Communities and Local Government was in fact the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time when the NPPF went on its rounds, so it is possible that the red ink was added at a much earlier stage.
I suggest that the Minister has a quiet word with the Secretary of State to explain to the high proportion of Conservative activists who belong to the National Trust—because he will soon find that out again—how much regard the NPPF has now attracted on all sides as a short, intelligible and easy-to-read planning document, and consider either scrapping Clause 12 completely or introducing a provision stating that local authorities are not permitted to impose conditions which go beyond the National Planning Policy Framework. I would have thought that that would achieve the objective which I think the Minister is seeking. Finally, the Minister should also convey to the Secretary of State the fact that this is a Henry VIII clause that Charles III will be most unhappy about.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I hope that that is many years from now. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in our debate on whether Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill and I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to his place. I fully understand the circumstances that kept him away earlier. We did deal with Amendment 43A, but I will endeavour to cover a couple of points on it as we proceed.
As noble Lords will be aware, the need for new housing is paramount to deal with some of the issues we are looking at, although of course I accept that there are many other circumstances we also need to consider relating to the Bill. The Government want to ensure that, once planning permission has been granted, we can move on as quickly as possible with housebuilding. At present this does not always happen because too many planning authorities impose unnecessary pre-commencement planning conditions. I accept that they are the exception, but on occasion they require applicants to take action before any works can commence that unreasonably hold up the start of building supply. This is unacceptable to the Government when we want to address the urgent need to increase the supply of homes. I think that noble Lords realise that there is a balance to be struck and a nuance that needs to be dealt with.
I have sought to indicate that this provision does not give the Secretary of State the powers being suggested by some noble Lords. New Section 100ZA(1) set out in Clause 12(1) does give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations, but it has to be read in the light of subsection (2) which provides that:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision only if (and in so far as) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the provision is appropriate for the purposes of ensuring that any condition imposed on a grant of planning permission for the development of land … is—
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
(b) relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally;
(c) sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced, and
(d) reasonable in all other respects”.
Subsection (3) goes on to state:
“Before making regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation”.
This is not the wholesale provision which some noble Lords have been suggesting would give unfettered power to the Secretary of State. However, I accept that there are material considerations in terms of reaching a balance. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who recognised that. I can confirm that, as I indicated in response to the previous group of amendments, all of the issues raised are in the National Planning Policy Framework and so would be appropriate for the agreement of conditions with the developer.
Neither the Government nor any planning authority is in a position to force people to come to an agreement. The idea that we can somehow force either the local authority, as was perhaps suggested by some noble Lords or the developer, who may walk away at the end of the day because he is not happy with what the planning authority is saying, is wrong because we cannot—the National Planning Policy Framework has to be complied with. These are matters of consent and no Government would be able to do that, short of taking wholesale powers away and rewriting the law of contract, which we are not proposing. Indeed, I do not think anyone is suggesting that we should.
I am happy to go away and consider some of the points that have been made, but I come back to the point that we have to deal with inappropriate pre-commencement conditions. That is not to say that they are inappropriate as conditions—they may be quite appropriate as conditions, and many of those cited are—but they are not appropriate as pre-commencement conditions, and that is the point I keep coming back to. This is the intention of the legislation, as demonstrated by the wording of the new section. I do not accept that it is obscure or meaningless. I accept that there are considerations here but, if I may, I refer to the Government’s response to the consultation on improving the use of planning conditions. Admittedly, views were split on this, but it is not the case that all local authorities thought that the idea is a dreadful one. The majority—a bare majority, I accept—thought it was a good idea, with 44% either in complete support or supportive of the principle with reservations about the process. That was a majority in favour of the sort of action we are looking at.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has gone on for well over an hour. I place on record my appreciation of the Minister and the open and collaborative way he deals with noble Lords at all times in Committee, in the Chamber and in our deliberations outside. I get on very well with the noble Lord. I have great respect for him and we work very well together. Our job is to raise points and ask questions and I appreciate the way he comes back to us. However, he has not yet really provided evidence of why the clause is necessary or responded to the concerns he has heard from around the Committee. He needs to do that. His response to Amendment 34 in a previous debate highlighted why the clause is not necessary. He listed a whole load of powers that the Government already have at their disposal. I am sure he will go away and look at that.
I agree with the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, who is a mainstay of the Committee. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, when he talked about unnecessary conditions. I do not want to see any unnecessary conditions being imposed or holding up development. I want to see joint working. Very few applications come before members of any planning committee. Most are done under delegated powers by officers. I do not want to do anything that would hold up development. The noble Lord, Lord True, highlighted real problems with Clause 12, as did other Members of the Committee. I hope that the Minister will come back before or on Report with some way forward.
My noble friend Lord Beecham highlighted the issue with the Delegated Powers Committee. The Minister has said he will address his concerns before Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was right when she talked about good place-making and the call for developers and local authorities to achieve it. We have all learned the lesson from the past that there is no point in not doing that. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, asked whether it was necessary that these were pre-commencement conditions. Once again, we do not want anything to hold up development. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, may have given the Minister an indication of a way forward in dealing with the clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said that there was nothing in the clause to give the Secretary of State any powers that noble Lords have suggested. I respect the noble Lord and the point he is making, but he has to look carefully at the clause and find an alternative way of saying what the Government are trying to achieve. There is genuine concern that it is overbearing and goes too far—that localism is being pushed out of the way and that a lot of people are not going to be listened to. I accept that that is not the intention and I do not doubt for a minute that the Minister will look very carefully at the concerns. My particular concern is that, however well-intentioned, this clause risks local authorities having less influence and less ability to build what they want locally. It risks poorer-quality development and housing and buildings that are not sustainable. I do not think anyone in this Committee wants that. I hope that the Minister will reflect, as he said he would, and come back to us before Report in one of his series of letters. I withdraw my opposition to Clause 12 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Local authorities and development management services
(1) A local planning authority may set a charging regime in relation to its development management services.(2) In setting the amount of a charge under subsection (1), a local planning authority must secure that, taking one financial year with another, its income from charges does not exceed the cost to the authority of delivering the development management services for which the charges are imposed.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 45, which is in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, seeks to add a new clause to the Bill. The purpose of the new clause is to make provision for local planning authorities to recover the costs they incur in delivering their development services. This is needed by local government, which very much supports the proposal, and the amendment draws all-party support. Local government already subsidises this process by well over £100 million per annum, which is not right at any time, but particularly at this time of reduced budgets and pressure on local services. The fact that the Government are allowing councils to increase their council tax by up to 5%, particularly to deal with the issue of social care, shows how unsustainable the present situation is.
Amendment 57 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Beecham, seeks to ensure that the costs of the new planning duties are calculated and adequately funded. In opening this debate I will leave my remarks there; there are other amendments in this group, which I am sure will be spoken to, and I may also have a few questions for the Minister when I respond. I beg to move.
Lord True
My Lords, before other supporters of the amendment speak, I will briefly signal my view that this matter needs to be addressed. I spoke about it at some length on the previous legislation, and supported the relevant amendments.
As an example, it costs my authority over £1 million a year on a budget of about £150 million, which is a significant amount of money, effectively to subsidise aspirations to development. People want to appropriate an advantage—which is perfectly reasonable in a free society—but impose costs, obligations and sometimes potentially loss on their neighbours. It seems entirely reasonable that this service, which is a good public service and done well, should be paid for by those who by definition can afford it. If you are whacking in a development, whether it is an extension or a major development, you can certainly afford to cover the cost. I ask for no more than the covering of the cost of providing that service. I so much agree with what my noble friend Lord Lansley said earlier. We want good planning officers to enable this thing to happen. Unless we have proper resourcing, it is simply not possible to attract and keep good planning officers.
What is happening here, with all the other pressures on local authorities, is that a sector—those who wish to assert property rights and seek pecuniary or personal advantage by so doing—are being subsidised at the expense of money that is squeezed away from other sectors, whether it is the provision of education, social services, or whatever. I cannot believe that this Government—a Conservative Government—would wish in the longer term to subsidise this small part of the profit-making sector at the expense of broader public social services. Although it is above my pay grade—and although I hope that my noble friend Lord Bourne is immensely influential in the Government, it is probably above his pay grade too—I hope that at some time the cry that this is entirely unreasonable will be heard.
I also have great sympathy with Amendment 57 in this group. Where new burdens are added, please can the costs be considered or covered? Clause 13—to which no amendment is tabled; there would have been one had I been here last week—adds a burden. We had burdens on the housing and planning legislation last year, such as compiling new information and making returns. This means officers being employed—young men and women coming into offices up and down the country, doing time and sending returns to the Government. That is a cost on public funds. I would rather that no additional burdens on local authorities came out of government regulation, but if there are, please can we consider support, particularly in this highly pressed planning sector?
I therefore have sympathy for all the amendments in this group, and I am sure that there will be much give and take about what wording is correct and how it might be done, by whom or when. I beg the Government to allow this service for those who seek to make profit and personal gain and improvement—to which I have no objection in principle at all—to be charged at cost.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, although my Amendment 48 is in this group, it takes rather the opposite view—or perhaps comes at it from a different angle—than the rest of the amendments in the group. As I see it, the other three amendments in this group all aim to recoup the costs, but not a penny more. That sounds like an admirable situation, but my amendment is about something quite different. We have heard in the Housing and Planning Bill that there are many developers wanting to do some major work who would be prepared and willing to pay for additional services at an extra speed to progress things. I understand from a number of local authorities that this would be welcomed. They could not afford to suddenly be burdened with huge, extra costs because someone was going to do a big development, but they would be quite willing to provide additional expertise if an additional fee could be charged.
When I spoke to the clerk who grouped these amendments, I asked whether it was appropriate for these amendments, which we are linking together, to be the two sides of the same coin. She said that it was appropriate and that, in fact, it might be an advantage for these two points to be considered together. I do not have strong views on this, but I do know it was aired very definitely in the debate on the Housing and Planning Bill last year, and I thought the case was reasonably well made. It seems to me that if it was possible, it would still be up to the local authority to decide whether or not to use that technique. I certainly think it is worth considering.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 45, to which I have added my name. As it is the first time I have spoken, I would also like to draw the Committee’s attention to my details in the register, particularly as a member of Sheffield City Council.
I have seen the effect of not having adequately funded planning departments and development services. At the moment, most authorities have to subsidise up to 30% and in so doing—particularly in the light of the financial position that local authorities find themselves in—many planning departments are under great stress and many planning officers have far more cases in their case load, which can slow down the planning process and, at times, lead to not the best decisions. That is not because the officers are bad or not looking at detail, but because they are so widely spread that they do not have the time to deal with each particular planning application.
This is not just about local government holding out the begging bowl and asking for these fees. Even the builders and the developers are asking that such money as is suggested in these amendments is allowed to be charged by local authorities. The British Property Federation survey of October 2015 found that two-thirds of private sector respondents would be willing to pay an increased fee which would help keep an effective service. It is not just local authorities but builders and developers who have said that.
As has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in 2015-16, about £195 million has not been recuperated, which is a huge amount for local authorities and planning services. I hope therefore that the Minister will look at this. I think it will help, not just to speed up the planning service but to lead to better and more timely decisions.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I want to say a few words in support of Amendment 47 tabled in my name. Our debate is either a little too late or a little premature, because we have reason to believe that there is going to be something on this subject in the long-awaited and I believe now imminent White Paper. It may well be that before long we will know what it is, and we will probably then have a more useful debate on the Government’s intentions or, for that matter, their lack of intentions.
The points have been made and all these amendments seek the same thing by more or less similar means. The noble Lord, Lord True, put it very well when he said that there is no reason why local authorities at any time, least of all in the current straitened circumstances, should be subsidising the development industry in the way they do. None of these amendments suggests that local authorities should make a profit out of planning and development control. What one is aiming for, as far as possible over time, is a break-even position.
I discussed this with my local planning authority, of which I am no longer a member, and found that the planning officers are longing for the return of the planning delivery grant, which if I remember rightly lasted from 2007 to 2010. There was actually a lot to be said for it, because the funding it provided for local authorities was based on performance and incentives. What one should perhaps be looking for here is not simply a grant or funding for local authorities, but for a way that is tied to incentives. All of us want to see the housing target delivered, but we know that unless we do something quite serious to increase the resourcing of planning departments and to stem the flow of planning officers from the public to the private sector, where frankly they are a lot better rewarded, we are not going to deliver on the housing targets or, to go back to our earlier debate, on neighbourhood planning, particularly in urban areas, and I speak with knowledge of London.
Incidentally, I was not too surprised to learn that 20% of all planning applications are dealt with by London boroughs, all of which are severely overstretched because they are underfunded—budget restraints affect everybody—the cost of living is so much higher, and the opportunities for qualified planners are greater in the private sector than they are in the public sector. It is reaching crisis point, and if we are to solve the housing problem, this is part of what needs to be done. That is what all these amendments seek to achieve, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister a preview of what is to be in the long-awaited White Paper.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate, and I appreciate the build-up of the White Paper by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I will have to be careful about what I say because as he has observed very cogently, this is perhaps premature to the housing White Paper which is expected shortly.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Yes, it is imminent. Before I respond to the specific amendments in the group, I want first to echo what has been said. The Government recognise the impressive performance of local planning authorities up and down the country. We have certainly asked much of them in terms of getting Britain building, delivering new homes and providing the employment that will drive our economy forward. There is no doubt that we will want still more from local authorities, and that is why this issue is going to be addressed in the White Paper. I think we all agree that this is a matter of great importance and I am pleased that the White Paper will set out how it can best be addressed. I hope that noble Lords will participate in the discussion on it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his introduction, and my noble friend Lord True for talking about the current position, which I understand. Let me turn to my noble friend Lady Gardner’s amendment. As she indicated, it is perhaps slightly different from the other amendments in the group. It seeks to enable local authorities to charge fees that exceed cost recovery in respect of their planning functions. It is an interesting proposal but not one I can imagine would be immediately attractive to the applicant. We are certainly clear that the principles on handling public funds mean that when we set fees, such as those for planning applications, they should be set at cost recovery, and that is what we aim to do. Under the Local Government Act 2003, local authorities have the power to charge for discretionary services up to the level of cost recovery at present. I know many local authorities have chosen to use this power to charge, for example, for giving pre-application advice on planning applications. I think that that deals with those situations.
I turn now to the points raised by noble Lords who spoke to other amendments in the group. The points were essentially the same, but let me say something specific about the new burdens issue, which is slightly different and was picked up in Amendment 57 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lord Beecham. It seeks a requirement to consult local planning authorities on the burdens imposed by new statutory duties before commencing those measures. This raises an important principle and one I am happy to acknowledge. I recognise it is a priority to ensure that planning departments have resources to provide the service that applicants and communities deserve. As noble Lords will probably be aware, we have a long-standing mechanism in place through the new burdens procedure, which has crossed successive Governments, to consider and make provision for funding to local authorities for any additional work arising from new statutory duties. The approach to new burdens provides that when the Government introduce new responsibilities and statutory duties on local authorities, these must be properly assessed and fully funded.
As a matter of routine we discuss new policies with the Local Government Association and value the insight that it brings to the table. All the measures in the Bill have been considered against this doctrine and we do not believe that the burdens in the Bill, if there are any, are expected to have a significant impact on local authority resources. We are committed to working with local authorities to find ways of securing the finance, people and skills they need to maintain strong planning departments. As I said, this has to be seen in the context of the imminent housing White Paper. I hope noble Lords will recognise that these amendments seek to place in the Bill powers and mechanisms that the Government already have and that these matters will, as I said, be reflected in the imminent housing White Paper. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord True, that these issues need to be addressed. There is cross-party agreement at local government level that it is important we do that. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, both here and outside the Committee, hears that. If costs are not recoverable and the planning officers cannot do their job, then of course all that we are debating here—the desire to move things on as quickly and efficiently as possible—risks coming to nothing or very little. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, also highlighted the need for these costs to be covered and the issues for local government to be addressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke about the need to keep planning officers, and I very much agree with that. There are many noble Lords in Committee today who are members of local authorities, some in and some outside London. It is the same for planning authorities. I bet the Minister could visit any authority and he would hear the same thing, no matter which party controls or does not control it. There is real pressure on the retention of planning officers and around recovering the costs involved. It is a huge problem. I hope the noble Lord hears what we are saying and will reflect on it. I hope that he can come back to us with something, perhaps on Report.
As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has highlighted some issues; she understands these matters very well and picks up on them incisively. I hope we can come on to them at some point, but my first concern is getting these basic costs covered. Perhaps we can have discussions in future about whether people want to pay extra to get things done more speedily, but for now the priority is getting these costs covered and getting planning departments to function properly. Having said that, at this stage I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Parminter
“Planning: duty to have regard to the protection of ancient woodland and veteran and aged trees
In section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (planning permission to include appropriate provision for preservation and planting of trees), after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) to refuse permission for any development which may result in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location are wholly exceptional;(d) to refuse permission for a development in respect of which there is insufficient provision made for the preservation of woodland and planting of trees; and(e) to impose any such conditions and make any such orders as are necessary to protect woodland and trees.(2) The local planning authority must—(a) ensure that all planning applications are compatible with the protection and enhancement of the environment; and(b) ensure that the protection and enhancement of the environment is identified as a strategic priority in the authority’s area under section 19 or 35 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.(3) In this section—(a) “ancient woodland” means an area that has been continuously wooded since the year 1600; (b) “veteran and aged trees” means trees which because of their age, size or condition are of exceptional value culturally, in the landscape or to wildlife.””
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I am moving this amendment because of the unavoidable absence abroad of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. The amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
The Bill offers an important opportunity to amend the way the planning system deals with ancient woodland and reduce the controversy created by planning proposals involving ancient woodland, which is often much loved in its locality, thereby reducing the delay that such controversy can cause. Ancient woodlands are important but their importance is still not well understood. They are woods that have remained under continuous woodland cover for at least 400 years, and in some cases for centuries, or even tens of centuries, longer. They are a complex network of species, soil, history and culture and each of them is unique, distinctive and irreplaceable. Once ancient woodland is destroyed or damaged, it cannot simply be planted again; this complex amalgam of ecosystem, culture and history is lost for ever.
However, ancient woodland has a lot less protection under planning policy than ancient buildings. Ancient woodland is increasingly threatened by planning decisions, particularly housing developments, where planners and developers see that the lesser level of protection given to ancient woodland by the National Planning Policy Framework compared with that given to ancient buildings is a reason not to give ancient woodland any protection at all. There are currently 600 ancient woodlands under threat from planning proposals. There is one that I am particularly familiar with in my locality, the proposed development of the Dunsfold Aerodrome, where the proposed access road will lead to the direct loss of ancient woodland. Yet the local plan of my local authority, Waverley, states that,
“the loss of ancient semi-natural woodland will be resisted”.
So clearly the wording in the NPPF gives developers hope that even a pretty strong local plan could be worth ignoring.
We are already at the point where so much ancient woodland has been destroyed that it covers just over 2% of Great Britain’s land surface. The amendment aims to give the same level of protection to this irreplaceable ancient woodland as is currently given to ancient buildings. Ancient woodlands, as my noble friend, Lady Young, said so memorably at Second Reading, are the cathedrals of the natural world.
We know the Secretary of State is not keen to put further protections into the Bill, and we understand that. However, we were very heartened by the words of the Minister at Second Reading that the Government might consider other routes, such as making amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework. Indeed, if the Daily Telegraph is to be believed, then imminently—perhaps even as imminently as tomorrow—we may see a White Paper making such a firm commitment, and we would be delighted to see such a commitment. In the absence of that White Paper today, though, the Bill still provides the potential to give ancient woodlands the protection that they deserve and so desperately need, and which we know local communities want to see. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I rise with great enthusiasm to support the noble Baroness in moving this amendment. I emphasise that I am very involved in the kindred area of national parks, and am vice-president for the Campaign for National Parks.
There is room for hope. As we wait for the White Paper, we hope it will have within it the same kind of undertakings that the Government have given on the national parks regarding their indispensability, their importance to the culture and the values of our society and the recreational and spiritual regeneration of those who are able to take part in what they provide.
I worry often about our highly quantitative society. There is a desperate need to reassert the qualitative dimensions of our society. Woodlands are rich in the heritage and history of our country. There are trees that have witnessed the whole evolution of our democracy and society over centuries. They are a real link with where we are, where we have come from and what we want to be, as our history is indispensable in understanding society and life and its challenges.
Other dimensions make the woodlands so important, particularly the ancient trees. Of course we want to build houses. Of course we want a thriving economy. But for what? Is it just to be able to say that our economy has grown and that people own houses to a greater extent than before? Or is it so that people can enjoy a richer, fuller society? Our young people need to have a sense of imagination and vision. Just think about what imaginative teachers are able to do with young children if they have ancient trees in their midst and can use the experience of the ancient trees in their whole approach to history, understanding and learning.
In my life, I have too often come across evidence of the absence of vision and space for too many of our youngsters in society, who grow up in a restricted material environment that denies them the opportunity to flourish as individuals and to become richer, fuller people. I must not yet again tell the story, which profoundly moved me at one point in my life, about a youngster—a seven or eight year-old—from an inner-city area saying that what was so exciting about being in a youth centre beside Windermere in the Lake District was that she had never seen far before in her life. What do we want our children to be? Automatons or living creatures with imagination? How will we sustain our democracy and our future unless we have people with vision and potential? Trees are crucial to this.
When I saw that my noble friend Lady Young was considering this amendment, with the able support that she has had from our Liberal friends, I felt that I must become involved, because this is an imperative. I hope that the Minister will hear the message and say that the Government will look with good will at the challenge. In a few hours, a whole story with its links and roots in history can be uprooted, thrown away and destroyed—something that has been there for hundreds of years. We must not go down in history as a society that has lost all sense of root, destiny and continuity and is just living in the instant in a material sense. I cannot think of an amendment that is more appropriate to the kind of discussions that we have been having this afternoon.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I would like to add my voice in support of this amendment and to repeat the point made by the noble Baroness about the comparison of ancient woodlands to, say, a grade 1 listed building. I will take an example local to me, which is Wells Cathedral in the county of Somerset. It is irreplaceable. However much money you have, you cannot replace it. If you destroy it, whatever you put in its place could never be the first English Gothic cathedral built on a Saxon minster. That is the real wonder of Wells, apart from its magnificence and splendour as a building. Similarly, we cannot replace an ancient woodland. Whatever is put in its place, it will never be a pre-industrial 500 year-old to 10,000 year-old woodland with all the naturally developed species and habitats that tell the tale of the specific centuries it has lived through. Even if a newly planted woodland were to survive for 500 years in this fast-moving world, it could never be the same as one which may never have been planted at all, but just emerged from the residue of the last Ice Age or the wastelands of a Viking, Saxon or Norman wilderness. Such woodlands are irreplaceable and this amendment needs to be supported.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
My Lords, I understand that Amendment 46 is not central to the thrust of the Bill but it will definitely improve it, although perhaps as a bit of a side issue. The amendment seeks to do more than just preserve ancient trees, of which we have heard so much about and which are extremely important; in subsection (1)(d) it also provides for new plantings. The need for trees on development sites is extensive in order to improve the otherwise sterile environment that is often found on a new estate.
Trees improve the townscape by breaking up angular building forms. They bring colour in season, they screen unsightly views and enrich biodiversity and habitats. They benefit insects, birds and mammals, and provide a source of nectar for bees which are currently under much pressure from chemicals. They also provide berries for wildlife. Trees conserve energy by providing shelter and shade from the wind and the sun. They absorb pollution and particulates and thus improve air quality, which is an increasing urban problem leading to ill health and sometimes death. Trees can provide educational tools for schools in order to develop environmental awareness and conservation skills. The list of benefits is long and worthy—from the abstract by reducing human stress, to the practical by absorbing and mitigating the risks of flooding and erosion, as we have heard.
However, trees have to be managed and there are health and safety aspects to be addressed. For example, branches can sometimes shed without warning, but these are not too difficult to manage. If we had more trees, children might even rediscover the joys of climbing them and they might learn to respect and not to vandalise their own communities by damaging the young plants. This alone can foster strength in communities and reconnection with neighbours.
If carried, this amendment would add greatly to the Bill in an inexpensive and non-critical way. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, as someone who has lived all his life with trees, I feel that this afternoon’s debate has suddenly taken off. We are talking about buildings and planning, which is interesting but some could think a tad dry from time to time, but trees come into the picture and one wonders why. However, we should be talking about trees and buildings because they should live together. Look at New Palace Yard and the catalpa trees; look at Tate Britain and the plane trees.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this very important debate on Amendment 46. I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who tabled this amendment on this important issue. I know from the considerable work of the noble Baroness, Lady Young—who unfortunately cannot be with us today—as chairman of the Woodland Trust and co-chair of Environmentalists for Europe, that she has a great passion for this subject and I was very pleased to meet with her a few weeks ago to discuss these issues.
I recognise the importance of ancient woodland and veteran and aged trees. We have had some very cogent examples. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, gave a powerful example close to her own home and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who continues to have a distinguished role in national parks, rightly told us of the rich part they play in the heritage and history of our country.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, drew the parallel—or hopeful parallel, from his perspective—of Wells Cathedral, which is my favourite of all the English cathedrals. In my faith and integration role in the department, I have been visiting all the cathedrals of England in turn. I have so far visited 11, but Wells Cathedral is coming up shortly and I very much look forward to that. Many people have evoked that powerful, evocative and moving phrase: it is absolutely right that the ancient woodlands are the cathedrals of the natural world.
I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, for drawing attention to the importance of the ecology of bees and wildlife, and echoing the educational aspect, as did the noble Lord, Lord Judd. There is another string to the bow of my noble friend Lord Framlingham: visiting prisons and saving trees. I thank him for that really engaging story.
There are number of protections already within national planning policy legislation and guidance. I have listened to the arguments today and on previous occasions from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and I do recognise the importance of making sure these protections are made absolutely clear. As many noble Lords have said, the White Paper will be published shortly; I hope they will appreciate the aspects of it that indicate the way forward. I have listened carefully and can confirm that the Government do take this issue very seriously. We are talking about a massive asset to the country that we do not want to lose. With that reassurance, and in the light of the imminent publication of the White Paper, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, in light of the Minister’s reassurance that the Government take this matter very seriously, on behalf of my colleagues, I am very happy to not press my amendment on this occasion. I thank noble colleagues across the Committee who have shown their strength of feeling on this issue; and it is good that the department is listening. I single out the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, who in many ways represents the best of the House of Lords, in that people come in and speak about what they know. Every time he speaks on an issue, he does so with an expertise and commitment which is valued by all of us. Certainly, on behalf of my Benches—although I am sure on behalf of others as well—I thank all noble Lords who have shown commitment to this issue, but in particular I thank him. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Retrospective planning permission
(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control, as defined under section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”), the person or body who has caused the breach must make a retrospective planning application for planning permission under section 73A of the 1990 Act (planning permission for development already carried out).(2) In respect of a retrospective planning application, the person or body who has caused the breach of planning control is liable for the payment of fees or charges to the local planning authority in respect of the costs incurred in carrying out the functions connected with the retrospective planning application.(3) The person or body who has caused the breach of planning control is liable for the payment of a significant additional charge, connected to the retrospective nature of the planning application, in addition to the fees and charges the person or body is liable for under subsection (2).(4) In carrying out the functions connected with a retrospective planning application, the local planning authority must consult the people residing in the local area to which the retrospective planning application relates.”
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, I feel very strongly about the issue of people constructing buildings without permission. I have twice been affected by this personally and I think there are examples worth quoting.
One example was my home in a country village, a lovely little one in Oxfordshire with stone walls, where I lived opposite Iris Murdoch’s home. When Iris moved and sold the house, the person who bought it sold off the barn. I had a view from my house right down to the centre of the village where some person had bought the field to keep sheep there to retain the village’s history. One day, I looked out and an extra four-foot wall had suddenly gone up on top of the existing wall. Under planning law, you have no right to a view, therefore there was nothing we could do and we were just stuck with it. However, I was so disappointed that the only way you could see that lovely view was to go up to the little attic and look down from there, where it was still visible.
The other experience I had, which is a much worse example, was in London. My home was in central London and backed on to a listed square. They applied to increase their building by one floor by taking what was then a little roof and turning it into a whole floor. All the local residents went to great trouble to make sure that the angle of light was still fine for the rights to light into our house, which was just three stories high. It went up, and it was fine. The next thing that happened, about a year or two later—I lived there for 35 years—was that I suddenly saw another attic being built which was not following the agreed rights to light that all the experts had said were perfect for the situation. The wall was going straight up. I phoned Westminster Council and found that in fact I knew the chairman at the time. I explained to him how awful it was that our rights to light were being taken away. “Oh”, he said. “What a fuss you’re making. Of course it’s being built strictly in accordance with the planning permission”. I thought that was hard to believe. About 18 months later he phoned me: “I owe you an apology. Unfortunately, it was not built in accordance with the planning permission, but the people have moved in and are living in it now, and we don’t feel that it would be fair not to let them stay”.
Over the years I lived there, the whole terrace of these listed houses virtually put on another floor, which always went straight up the wall and took the light away. Just before I moved from that house, about two years ago, the nice man who lived in the last extra floor—the original one, which had the correct rights of light—said, “I’m just going to bring my house into line with everyone else’s”. It would not have made a scrap of difference to where I was living because about three or four of those represented the space that went along my back wall, and he was the only remaining one. However, I found it hard to believe that something could be done and there could be no comeback whatever. When Barbara Castle entered the House of Lords—my history is that I was a candidate against her in Blackburn in 1970—I had an amendment down in whatever Bill it was to this effect, on retrospective permission. She got up and proposed that it should be made a criminal offence. The House was not going to go that far. However, it should be prevented.
I know that there was that case of the man who built a whole house and hid it with a haystack for six years, then thought that it was outside the statute of limitations and that he had got away with it. However, the court ruled that if you had never made it visible to people, this was not right, and I believe he was obliged to take it down. I am not suggesting that we go that far. However, the nitty-gritty point in this amendment— I have been advised so by planning officers who have dealt with many of these cases—is that unless there is a punitive fee for going for retrospective permission, there is no encouragement to go for any permission ever. It will not cost you a penny more, and you will get away with a lot of things.
I understand also from discussions we have had recently that often little changes have to be made when a building is in the process of being constructed. Sometimes a piece does not quite work out because it cannot fit in or for some other reason, and people have to look at that. I am not including that in my idea of what should come under this legislation. However, if you think you can get away with doing something which structurally alters the position for neighbours and other people and which would probably not be approved if it went for planning permission—or it might have, but there was no encouragement to go for it—why would you try to do things in the right way? This is an important issue and I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I entirely sympathise with the objectives of the noble Baroness. However, I found the amendments as drafted not workable. Subsection (3) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 49 calls for a liability for a “significant additional charge” but it does not give any method of calculating that or saying how it might be achieved. On Report, an amendment inviting the Government to create such a structure subject to secondary legislation that in this case would probably be acceptable might be a way forward. In terms of subsection (4), I should have thought that if there is a retrospective planning application, it would have to be made public and subject to consultation in the ordinary ways. This subsection may be unnecessary. If subsection (3) were changed to convey a power to regulate for such a retrospective permission, that would be a way forward. Perhaps the Minister already has that in mind. The objective is right but we have yet to find quite the right wording.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, who speaks with great authority on these areas and here with personal experience. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his contribution. How we deal with unauthorised development is an important issue that concerns many people. The Government are clear that unauthorised development is unacceptable and unfair to the vast majority of people who abide by the rules. However, the retrospective planning application process is there primarily to give those who have made a genuine mistake the opportunity to rectify the situation. There are, of course, such people. It also gives local planning authorities the flexibility to invite a retrospective application where they consider that it is the appropriate course of action.
It is important to note that retrospective planning applications must be determined in exactly the same way as any other application, that is, in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham is therefore right in relation to subsection (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 49. That for which it provides would be the case anyway.
There is no guarantee that planning permission will be granted just because the development already exists. The noble Baroness cited the haystack example and there are many more in which houses have been built that occasionally people find quite acceptable, but which because they did not have planning permission and because of what planning policy indicated, have had to be demolished. Therefore, those who undertake unauthorised development put their development, their investment and perhaps their professional reputation at risk. The sale of properties built or adapted without the necessary permissions may also present considerable difficulties.
Local planning authorities can impose planning conditions on the retrospective grant of planning permission to mitigate the impact of the development. Where unauthorised development proves to be unacceptable, local planning authorities have at their disposal a wide range of enforcement powers with strong penalties for non-compliance. I note that where an enforcement notice is served, as does happen on occasion, and the person appeals on the ground that planning permission ought to be granted, they are deemed to have made an application for planning permission and must pay a fee. That fee is twice the fee that would have been payable in respect of a planning application to the relevant authority seeking permission for the matters stated in the enforcement notice as constituting a breach of planning control. I appreciate that that is only where an enforcement notice is served, but in that situation there is already a double charge. This recognises the additional work involved for the planning department in dealing with both an appeal and an application.
The effect of my noble friend’s amendment would be to make retrospective planning applications compulsory for all breaches of planning control under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This would be difficult to enforce and could lead to unnecessary delays where a local planning authority is clear that such an application would be refused and enforcement action taken. Clearly it would be not be helpful to delay effective enforcement action by local planning authorities where it is evident that the unauthorised development is totally unacceptable. That could well be the case in some situations.
My noble friend’s amendment would also introduce a penalty fee in addition to charges in respect of the costs over and above the double charge I have referred to which is incurred by the local planning authority in carrying out its functions connected with a retrospective planning application. This would unfairly penalise those who have made a genuine error and discourage the submission of such an application for proper consideration by the local planning authority. It is a matter which I know previous Governments have considered and to some extent grappled with, but in the interests of fairness have not decided to take forward. I appreciate that this is an important issue and I thank my noble friend for airing it and giving the Government some time to consider it, but for the reasons I have outlined, I would ask her respectfully to withdraw the amendment on this occasion.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the Minister for his reply which I will read carefully. I may perhaps come back at the next stage with different wording that might resolve some of the points he has raised. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Public land registerRegister of public land
(1) Every local planning authority must keep a register of all public land in its area, for the purpose of identifying land in their area which could be used for development.(2) The register must be kept in such manner as is prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations made by statutory instrument.”
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 49A would create a register of public land. Quite properly, local authorities are required to compile and keep an up-to-date register of brownfield land within their area. This ensures that the land is reused in an orderly manner for housing development. Most of the land is brought into use without too much difficulty, but occasionally it may be contaminated and require additional and expensive work to bring it up to a suitable state for housing. Given the extreme shortage of suitable land and the enormous pressure for housing in the country, it seems sensible to bring all the spare land in an area into use as quickly as possible. Requiring local authorities to compile and keep up-to-date registers of public land within their boundaries would mean that they would have an accurate picture of where the land is and whether it is being used productively or is just lying fallow. They can then work with the relevant agencies to bring the land into use for housing.
I shall give the example of a Royal Marines base not a million miles away from where I live but in a different local authority area. This base has been in the community for some considerable time, but recently the MoD decided to close it and move the personnel elsewhere. Here is a perfect site for housing. All the infrastructure, including water, sewerage and electricity, is in place, as well as a decent internal road system. There is unlikely to be a gas supply, given its location, but I could be wrong. No doubt some of the infrastructure would need to be updated, but the site would be much more preferable to digging up a greenfield area. That is just one example, but there will be others involving other agencies such as the NHS. Some of this publicly held land will not be as visible as a military base, but it could nevertheless be released for housing. Some of these parcels of land will be small, but could accommodate half a dozen houses, while others will be larger and suitable for 300 to 400 homes. The land supply shortage in some areas is so desperate that it really is time that all possible avenues were explored fully.
Local authorities with housing provision responsibilities are the logical and obvious partners to compile and keep up to date a brownfield register in order to be able to act quickly when redundant land becomes available. I realise that this amendment will not find favour in all quarters, but I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Pinnock
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 49B in my name is to draw attention to and, if possible, seek a remedy for the significant delays and difficulties in getting some brownfield sites developed.
Brownfield or previously used land is well defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. The definition includes a wide range of previous uses. Some of these sites pose no particular problems or costs for developers. The sites I am concerned with are those that have suffered considerable contamination as a result of an earlier industrial use in a less-regulated age. Remediation of these sites can be very costly and a big disincentive to developers. There are a great number of brownfield sites. The CPRE research in 2016 estimated that these cover an area sufficient for 1.1 million homes. Those figures may be disputed but that is not my point. My point is that there are demonstrably large areas of previously used land available for development, many of them with current planning permissions, but the sites remain undeveloped.
Using brownfield land has a double benefit. It saves greenfield sites from development and uses existing derelict land in urban areas. This derelict land often attracts problems other than the visual depression it can bring to an area. I am probably one of the few people in this Room who actually lives near some derelict land. I can tell you, it is something we have been trying to resolve for years but cannot because it is heavily contaminated. When the Bill was debated in the other place, Andrew Mitchell MP raised this very issue and hoped that it could be addressed before the Bill’s passage was concluded.
The question is: how can brownfield sites be effectively prioritised? The Royal Town Planning Institute report of last year said:
“Previously-developed brownfield land in built-up areas must continue to play a vital role for a range of purposes including housing. But a ‘brownfield first’ policy will fail to deliver its full potential if there is insufficient available funding for the treatment and assembly of land. New proactive remedial programmes are needed to remove constraints on development and to make places where people want to live which are accessible by sustainable modes of transport”.
Unfortunately, the Government are currently providing disincentives for brownfield development. Not only is there a lack of support for remediation but there are incentives for developers to use greenfield sites, such as the five-year housing supply rule, which enables developers to cherry pick greenfield and green belt sites while ignoring brownfield sites.
The further consequence of the costs of land remediation is that when the land is developed, obviously the costs are greater and so developers are able to argue that any planning gain for the local community is not financially viable. Therefore, affordable housing is lost on those sorts of sites—the very sites where, often, affordable housing is needed. I ask the Minister to respond positively to this plea on behalf of areas across the country, including my own, where land values are lower than in the south-east and where, therefore, the costs of remediation can be prohibitive to development.
Baroness Cumberlege
My Lords, I have not put my name to this amendment but I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, has said. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can think of ways in which we could introduce for developers—which I absolutely understand see that brownfield sites are more expensive for various reasons—some sort of incentive to make sure it is worth their while to develop these sites. I say to my noble friend that this makes such sense given that we have a problem finding sites for development. These are the obvious ones to use, except for the cost. I wonder whether we could build in incentives for developers to come in and use these sites.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we on this side support the amendment. It is particularly welcome that there is a proper reference to obtaining affirmative approval for any regulations that are required. It is important to address the issue of land that is difficult to develop. My noble friend has just reminded me of the very successful redevelopment at Greenwich, which was a pretty bleak landscape. It required significant investment but it has paid off very well. We certainly need to encourage development there. It does not necessarily have to be private building development for sale. Local authorities and social housing can also be very involved in the process. Indeed, we want to see mixed communities of that kind, but this is not inconsistent with the amendments.
We need to facilitate development here, partly, as has been said, to avoid putting undue pressure on green space—whether it is green belt or not—but also because if they are not developed these sites bring down the quality of life in the surrounding community, of whatever nature that might be. So there is a triple benefit: first, for those moving into the accommodation; secondly, for the surrounding community; and, thirdly, because you are not building on areas that ought to be left as open space for the enjoyment of the community as a whole. We are very supportive of the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate on Amendments 49A and 49B, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Pinnock. The amendments cover two important areas.
On the new clause inserted by Amendment 49A, I agree with the noble Baroness that there should be transparency around land assets held by public bodies. Public bodies must be accountable for the assets they hold, and where land assets are no longer required to support the functions of the body, they should be released so that they can be put to good use, including the provision of much-needed new homes. I can reassure noble Lords that the proposed new clause is not required. A great deal of work is already under way to ensure that this transparency exists, and it may help the Committee if I briefly outline the measures that are either in place or being put in place.
First, information on government land assets is already made available through the Cabinet Office electronic property information mapping service, e-PIMS—that trips off the tongue. This feeds the Government Property Finder website, where anyone can search to obtain a list of government land assets locally, regionally and nationally. Where land is made surplus for development, the e-PIMS system also makes this clear.
Secondly, for land owned by local authorities, the Local Government Transparency Code 2015 requires local authorities subject to that code to publish, on an annual basis, details of all land and building assets, including undeveloped land. In 2016 we consulted on updating the transparency code. We proposed that in addition to the existing data on land and property assets published by local authorities, they should also publish, on e-PIMS, the extent of the land in hectares for each piece of land; whether that land is surplus to requirements; whether there are current or future plans to release the land for housing development; if there are plans to release the land for housing development, what the current planning status is; if there are plans to release the land for housing development, how many homes can be accommodated, and, for properties of 10,000 square feet or larger, the floor area of that property, the number of floors and the number of car parking spaces it has. We are carefully considering the responses we received and will be responding to the consultation in due course.
Thirdly, nearly three-quarters of local authorities in England are now part of the Cabinet Office and Local Government Association’s One Public Estate programme. This is expected to grow to 95% in 2018. The One Public Estate programme brings together public bodies across a local area seeking to unlock the value in land and property assets for better local services, efficiencies and local growth. In doing so, land that is made surplus can then be released. A condition of membership of the One Public Estate programme is that local authorities and their public sector partners must upload their land asset data to the e-PIMS system. Work is already under way to bring central and local land data together in the e-PIMS system. This will make land asset data across the public sector readily available to anyone in a single place, rather than having registers held by individual authorities. I hope that this reassures noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring transparency in the use of land assets and appropriate release across the public sector, and that they have a clear plan to make that happen.
Amendment 49B, in relation to brownfield land, is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and was spoken to by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He cited the example of Greenwich. A development corporation is involved across the river as well—I am sure that the London Borough of Lewisham will have something to say on that, but I will move swiftly on.
I think we all agree that previously developed land, more commonly known as brownfield land, has an important role to play in delivering much-needed new homes. The Government remain committed to ensuring that 90% of suitable brownfield sites have planning permission for housing by 2020. That is our stated policy, but I appreciate that the noble Baroness is looking for more concrete action, and I will be moving on to that.
The Government already have a strong policy framework in place to encourage the reuse of brownfield land. We are also developing further policy measures in regulations, which will help unlock housing being built on suitable brownfield sites and maximise the number of dwellings built on brownfield land. It is an appropriate mechanism, as noble Lords have mentioned, in order not to have to build on the green belt, which of course we do not want to do and is not anticipated. That is why building on brownfield land is so important.
Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework asks local authorities to encourage the reuse of brownfield land if it is not of “high environmental value”, and planning guidance reinforces the expectation that local plan policies should reflect the desirability of reusing brownfield land. Furthermore, in December 2015 our consultation on national planning policy sought views on proposals to create a presumption that brownfield land is used unless there are clear reasons why not. This consultation also set out proposals to make more efficient use of land by encouraging higher densities around commuter hubs and to encourage more starter home-led development on brownfield land. We intend to set out our response to these proposals in the imminent housing White Paper.
Our proposed changes to planning policy sit alongside other proposals to bring brownfield land back into use. The list is not exhaustive. We intend to bring regulations into force this spring requiring local planning authorities to publish and maintain brownfield registers, which was part of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. I hasten to say that I do not have personal and direct experience of the legislation, but I believe that that happened through the Act. These regulations will also enable local authorities to grant permission in principle to suitable sites on their registers. We are also committed to widening permitted development to help give new life to thousands of underused buildings, as well as accelerating the disposal of surplus public sector brownfield land for new homes.
I fully recognise that some brownfield sites have more constraints than others, and that will probably be particularly the case where land values are not so high. Greenwich had its challenges but of course the land values were greater there. Some sites may also require additional costs to bring them back into acceptable use. A number of financial measures are in place to bring such sites back into use; for example, £0.4 million has been made available to local authorities during 2016-17 to help with the costs of dealing with urgent remediation cases and, if possible, ongoing remediation projects. We have created a £3 billion home building fund to provide loans for small and medium-sized building firms, custom builders and offsite construction. Some £2 billion of that fund will be long-term funding available to developers to deliver infrastructure to support a strong future pipeline of housing supply and will help unlock between 160,000 and 200,000 homes.
We expect at least half of this £2 billion to be used to support brownfield sites, including land remediation. I am very happy if the noble Baroness wants to engage further with officials on that particular point.
Furthermore, where brownfield sites suffer from contamination, land remediation relief, offered by Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs for remediating contaminated land, provides relief from corporation tax, comprising a deduction of 100%, plus an additional generous deduction of 50%, for qualifying expenditure incurred by companies in cleaning up land acquired from a third party in a contaminated state. That is also significant. However, we must remember that not all brownfield land is suitable for housing development, and not all our housing needs will be met by building on brownfield land alone. As I have indicated, the Government have a clear plan and vision, but I am very happy to make officials available to explain the detail should noble Lords require more information.
To conclude, the Government are already taking action to support development on brownfield land. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and other noble Lords that the Government will continue to seek prioritisation of brownfield land for development. That is central to what the Government are seeking to do in relation to housing. Without giving too much away about the housing White Paper, this aim will be reflected in that. I hope noble Lords will forgive the somewhat lengthy explanations I have given in relation to these two amendments, but they are both important. I hope that, with the assurances I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
I thank the Minister for his very positive response to both the amendments. I am very pleased to hear that the Cabinet Office has a snappily named website where most public land can be accessed and in which most local authorities are participating. I shall go back and check that my local authority is participating. I can understand that some local authorities will perhaps be reluctant to upload exactly what their land holdings are; if I understood the Minister, that is a requirement of membership. However, I am pleased that there is some transparency around public land and that, wherever possible, it is brought into use for other purposes. I thank the Minister for the very detailed response on the issues around brownfield land. I found that very positive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“ In section 90(3)(effect of deemed planning permission) after “except” insert “section 100ZA and”.”
Lord Beecham
“Review of sustainable drainage
Before exercising his or her powers under section 41(1), the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact on communities’ resilience to flooding of planning legislation, government planning policy and local planning policies concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 56. Some Members of the Committee may recall my account of the surreal experience I enjoyed some 13 or 14 years ago when I was telephoned at home on a Saturday morning by my noble friend Lord Prescott, at that point Secretary of State for the Environment, as York was being submerged by flood waters. He inquired of me as to where sandbags may be obtained for the purpose of dealing with this—surrounded as he was by the cream of the Civil Service, who apparently did not know. That is an extreme example of the then Government’s lack of foresight—I expect it has not entirely gone away—in dealing with what is a growing problem in the context of climate change, about which we have already heard a little this evening. It is imperative that there is a thorough review, not only of planning new development but, in my submission, of the condition of already developed land. Even now, for example, we are finding front gardens paved over in a way that simply contributes to the problem of excess water and, ultimately, places undue pressure on the drainage system in established areas, as well as making it more difficult to develop new homes in particular.
This is not a particularly radical amendment—far from it. It asks only for a proper review by the Secretary of State. I imagine that the Government might not be unsympathetic to that. It is not a matter, I suspect, that we will necessarily want to place in legislation. Of course, it may be one of the little revelations to emerge from the forthcoming White Paper—perhaps the Minister cannot tell me but we will find out in a day or two. If it is not, it should be. If it is not, there is even more purpose in raising the matter this evening. I suspect that the Minister will be sympathetic to this because it is a growing problem in many parts of the country. Alas, even now, insufficient money is being devoted to dealing with flood prevention generally, as well as the more detailed local applications of dealing with the issue in existing properties and developments. In the light of that and looking forward to a warm response to the Minister, I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter
I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue and support him in his call. I am sure the Minister will make reference to the flood review that is currently being undertaken by the DCLG and Defra. Of course, the noble Lord’s amendment not only looks at surface water flooding, which is what the current review is looking at, but puts it, rightly, in the context of the broader issues of retrofitting and other forms of flooding as well. I too hope the Government will be supportive.
Perhaps I might say a few words about the review that the Government are undertaking. Noble Lords will remember that in the Housing and Planning Bill the Government conceded that there would be this review of surface water flooding. I think it is a disappointment to Members that it is only a desk-based exercise, that there has not been a public call for evidence and that therefore engaged organisations have not had the opportunity to input their views. Indeed, no surveys have been undertaken of local planning authorities; it is purely private meetings with particular stakeholders, including the developers.
However, so as not to appear churlish, I reiterate my thanks to the Minister for agreeing to meet me and other representatives later this week to hear the findings of what we believe is the largest survey undertaken in the UK of SUDS. Of the more than 500 responses—including from lead flood authorities, local authorities and even representatives of central government—70% thought that the current planning policies were not sufficient to deliver sustainable drainage solutions. I hope the Government will consider those recommendations before they finalise their review.
Perhaps the Minister might not only comment on the noble Lord’s wish for a full review of the flooding situation but commit to agree to the findings, when we receive them later this spring, of the review of flooding by the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change. I believe it intends to propose a number of recommendations around changes to planning policy, and I hope that the Government might be prepared to accept those. I am interested to hear the Minister’s views on how seriously they will be taking the committee’s recommendations.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for moving Amendment 56, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her contribution. I am afraid I will probably have to let the noble Lord down on this occasion. I am not convinced of the need for this.
First, as has been noted, Section 171 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to,
“carry out a review of planning legislation, government planning policy and local planning policies concerning sustainable drainage in relation to the development of land in England”.
My department had already commenced work on the review prior to this section of the Housing and Planning Act coming into force by order on 1 October last year. The objective of that review is to examine the extent to which planning policy has been successful in encouraging the take-up of such drainage systems in new developments. My officials are working closely with colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency to gather evidence to inform the review. The first stage of the review—to survey local plan policies related to sustainable drainage systems—has been completed. We are now working towards the next stage of the review—to collect evidence on how sustainable drainage systems are deployed in practice.
Stakeholder involvement is a critical element throughout the review. We have been engaging with a broad range of stakeholders through two dedicated groups set up specifically to support the review. The first is a high-level project steering group comprising members of the DCLG, Defra and the Environment Agency, the Climate Change Committee, the Adaptation Sub-Committee’s secretariat, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, and the Local Authority SuDS Officer Organisation. A second-tier engagement group, comprising key SUDS-related stakeholders, will function largely as a sounding board of expert advice to be drawn on as the review progresses. This comprises members from organisations including the Institution of Civil Engineers; Water UK; the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management. Membership comprises representatives from local planning authorities, professional and statutory bodies, environmental non-governmental organisations, house- builders and other agencies.
We remain committed to working constructively with the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change—an independent, statutory body established under the Climate Change Act 2008—so that the review informs their progress update on the national adaptation plan, due in the summer of 2017. Whenever I hear the mention of sandbags I always think of the organisation which the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, led so well. She did considerable work on climate change through that particular organisation.
In addition to this review, the National Flood Resilience Review, published in September last year, assessed the resilience of key local infrastructure, such as energy, water, transport and communications, and identified ways to protect it better. The flood resilience review includes an action plan that the water, telecoms and electricity utilities will develop and implement, with long-term plans—where not in place already—for improving permanently the resilience of service provision to significant local communities from the flooding defined by the Environment Agency’s extreme flood outlines. Both of these reviews, when considered together, address the role of planning relating to sustainable drainage and the resilience of local infrastructure in response to a flood incident.
It is in that context that a requirement for a third review is unlikely to add anything new. I am happy to discuss this further with the noble Lord, but I do think it is unnecessary and I respectfully ask him to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Beecham
I will withdraw the amendment, but I would like to ask for a little clarification. Is the review concerned with new or existing development? Drainage issues are something many of us can see in our neighbourhoods. Front gardens are concreted over for car parking purposes and other things, with adverse consequences for drainage. Is that sort of issue part of the review which the Government are conducting?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is asking about the first of the reviews—either the one on the Housing and Planning Act 2016 or the National Flood Resilience Review. In any event, I think the former of those—in connection with sustainable drainage—will certainly encompass that. I will double check that and be in touch with the noble Lord on that point. The second of the reviews is already complete. It was published in September last year, but I will ensure that he gets a link on that particular review if it is helpful.
Baroness Parminter
“Carbon compliance standard for new homes
(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, make regulations which require a local planning authority to refuse planning permission for the building of any new home which would not achieve the carbon compliance standard.(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), “carbon compliance standard” means an improvement on the target carbon dioxide emission rate, as set out in the Building Regulations 2006, of—(a) 60% in the case of detached houses;(b) 46% in the case of attached houses; and(c) 44% in the case of flats.”
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, we clearly need new homes but we need to future-proof them. With homes accounting for nearly a quarter of our total greenhouse emissions in the UK, we need new homes to contribute cost-effectively to meeting our greenhouse gas targets, but also to lower fuel bills for home owners and avoid the costs of retrofitting. That would also enhance quality of life. All the evidence is that the frail and elderly, and indeed young children, face significant hardships and challenges from insufficiently heated homes. The Minister knows the strength of feeling on this matter from across the Chamber during the passage of the Housing and Planning Act. This is therefore a probing amendment to ask what the Government are doing on this extremely important matter in advance of the review that was alluded to at the time of the Housing and Planning Act. Given the time, I am not going to revisit the arguments that we went through on the Housing and Planning Act. However, since then there have been a number of places—Oxford, Cambridge, Wales and Scotland—where homes have been built and large developments put up showing where zero-carbon homes can be delivered at scale.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, following the Housing and Planning Act, what are the Government’s plans to meet our carbon emission reduction targets if they do not introduce zero-carbon homes? We have seen no indication in the industrial strategy or in any other government plans of how the Government intend to meet their carbon emission reduction targets if we do not deliver the savings on new buildings, which, as the Minister knows, the climate change committee says are absolutely fundamental.
Secondly, can the Minister confirm that the Government will not prevent local councils requiring higher building standards? There is some lack of clarity about whether local authorities can carry on insisting in their local plans on higher standards. Prior to the withdrawal of the zero-carbon homes standards, places such as Brighton required in their local plans higher building standards. Will the Government confirm that they will not prevent local authorities including a requirement for higher building standards?
Thirdly, and again another standing cycle, the cost optimality review of building regulations is imminent—I believe it will be completed some time in the summer. Will the Minister say a few words about that? When will it be forthcoming? In particular, will there be public engagement and a public call for evidence so that all interested parties can play their full part in making sure that we move forward?
Higher regulatory standards in this area should not be considered as burdensome red tape but as an essential requirement to reduce both energy poverty and the threat of catastrophic climate change. There should be no exemptions. The big volume housebuilders have the scale and resources to take it forward and the smaller housebuilders are fleet of foot and able to cope. Unless we do something soon on housebuilding requirements, this Government are not going to be able to live up to the commitments that they so proudly and rightly trumpeted following their achievements at Paris last year. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we support the amendment of the noble Baroness. It is regrettable that having started off by beginning to tackle this issue, the coalition Government, it must be said, reduced the carbon standard requirements instead of building on what was a sensible approach. I hope that the Government—
Baroness Parminter
Just to confirm, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, who, after we had moved out of coalition with our partners, withdrew the zero-carbon home standards.
Lord Beecham
I am happy to accept that plea from the noble Baroness and put the entire blame on the Government. In all fairness, it is usually the case. Of course, George Osborne is now history and perhaps some of his policy decisions can be reviewed—I certainly hope so in this particular context. It is outrageous that we lag so far behind most European countries on environmental provision and space standards for properties. I hope that the White Paper—tomorrow or whenever it comes—is going to address those issues. If it does not then they will certainly be raised when we eventually come to discuss the White Paper. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for moving this amendment in group 24, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for speaking to it.
First, I will set the context, which is partly the Paris climate change agreement. To take credit for it, it was of course concluded at a time when there was a Conservative rather than a coalition Government—although, to be fair, it was supported by all parties. It was a step forward, and we worked closely with many countries, not least in Europe. From the outset, I remind noble Lords that the standards for new homes were strengthened by 30% in the last Parliament, when there was a coalition Government, saving £200 on energy bills compared to standards before 2010, when there was a Labour Government. To meet those standards, homes will have A-rated condensing boilers, double-glazed windows with low-energy glass, and high levels of insulation and air tightness in their construction—they are very energy-efficient homes.
A very similar amendment was debated at length during the passage of last year’s Housing and Planning Act. That Act placed a duty on the Secretary of State to undertake a review—to which reference has been made—of energy performance standards for new homes under Section 2C of the Building Act 1984. We have commenced costings analysis to underpin this review, and our aim is to publish the final review in the summer. It aims to identify what improvements are cost-effective and feasible for new homes. We plan to extend it to cover non-domestic buildings and work to existing buildings, seeking further potential reductions in carbon emissions and fuel bills. The noble Baroness asked about progress in meeting our climate change targets. Obviously, domestic compliance and measures are important, but it is not limited to them; hence we have extended it to other buildings, for example. Transport also makes a significant difference to emissions, so the Inter-Ministerial Group on Transport and looking at what we can do with regard to electric cars is significant. There have been massive changes in California in particular, which the Government have taken note of and are progressing, because that will make a significant difference.
Over recent years, we have seen reduced costs of technologies and energy efficiency measures, such as solar panels, which were discussed in detail in last year’s debates. I emphasise that it is important that we consider only the very latest information and data on costs—that is crucial. The carbon compliance standards proposed in this clause are, so far as I can see, not based on the latest data—I think some of them are some six years old—although I appreciate that that can be looked at. Obviously, we are looking at all these issues in the round. To prescribe standards without up-to-date information would be difficult. I can confirm that changes to the building regulations flowing from the upcoming review will be subject to a full consultation. That will include draft technical guidance on how to meet the changes, which will cover all homes from detached houses to high-rise flats. The noble Baroness asked specifically whether local authorities are able to set higher standards than the national ones, and I can confirm that they are able to do just that.
The new clause also proposes putting in place new powers in the planning regime to set the carbon compliance standards. This is unnecessary, as there are already powers to set such standards through the building regulations. I appreciate and understand that the noble Baroness said that this is a probing amendment, but the powers are already there. Also, the technical expertise to ascertain whether a building meets a particular energy performance or carbon compliance standard already exists in building control bodies. However, this technical knowledge is unlikely to be available within a planning department. Our position is that minimum energy performance standards should be set through the building regulations, with compliance being demonstrated through building control bodies. That is what we are looking at.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords that the proposed clause is unnecessary, although I appreciate that this was a probing amendment in the understanding that the review is moving. The review will use the latest costs and evidence, and any cost-effective changes proposed will be workable for all home types, across the range. I am happy to share information on the review with noble Lords at appropriate points as we take it forward, if that is helpful. On that basis, I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Parminter
I thank the Minister for his responses and the clear answers to two of my questions. The public call for evidence for the review is very welcome, as is the commitment for local authorities if they wish to set higher standards. It is helpful that those answers have been set on the record in that way. On my third point, I appreciate that housing makes up only one component of the UK’s greenhouse gases, but it is still one-quarter. When we had a Department of Energy and Climate Change, it was looking at producing an updated road map that showed how much would be delivered by savings in transport and housing. That has clearly been booted into the long grass, but at some point the Government will have to come clean on the issue. With that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Andrews
“Compulsory acquisition: payments from charitable trusts involved in conservation
In a case where—(a) a local planning authority has the power to compulsorily acquire a listed building or a building in a conservation area; and (b) a charitable trust whose objectives include the conservation of such property has given an obligation by deed to the local authority to pay to the local planning authority the costs of such acquisition;the planning authority must exercise its powers to compulsorily acquire the relevant building.”
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I declare an interest as deputy chair of the National Heritage Lottery Fund and chair of the Heritage Lottery Committee for Wales. We live in a time when every national and local asset needs to work for its living. Across the United Kingdom there are abandoned, and often derelict, properties, many of high heritage value and well loved by the community, that could be providing much-needed homes and spaces for businesses and enterprise and injecting new economic activity into communities. In other words, the amendment is a step towards enhancing the means by which these liabilities can be turned into assets. I am grateful for the help I have received from the Heritage of London Trust Operations, Diana Beattie and Colin John, and Ian Morrison of the Architectural Heritage Fund. They have much fine work to their credit.
What opportunity is this amendment seeking to create? Many of the buildings I am talking about are already on the Historic England buildings “at risk” register. They range from rare surviving industrial buildings such as mills or colliery buildings to historic theatres, cinemas, schools, piers, magnificent town halls, hospitals and domestic buildings such as a concrete house in Lordship Lane. Buildings such as these have been at the heart of communities. They occupy a very important, familiar and well-loved place. When they are abandoned, the cost of saving them and putting them to use rises exponentially and they deteriorate fast. Owners cannot be traced and local authorities find it impossible to acquire them. Year after year they look worse and become more dangerous, and the community feels their loss even more acutely.
This problem has been in the “too difficult” box for too long. It is no exaggeration to say that when these buildings come back into life, they galvanise the entire area: they can act as a catalyst and a confidence builder. I think particularly of Middleport Pottery in Stoke, the last surviving example of a pottery using the transfer method. After a long struggle by the Prince’s Regeneration Trust and English Heritage to keep it alive, it is now bringing in apprentices and its order books are full.
The amendment, which to my knowledge is the first of its kind to be proposed in primary legislation, is designed to tackle this problem. It confronts the fact that both the country’s heritage and its economic performance are, as the Architectural Heritage Fund puts it,
“suffering from an embedded culture of impunity for private property owners who are not upholding their responsibilities”.
At the moment, the system colludes with both negligent property owners and risk-averse local authorities. Owners are sitting on their property waiting for land values to increase and for the degree of deterioration which, in many cases, justifies demolition. Some of these owners cannot afford to put the building right; some refuse to do anything and they disappear. There are many ways in which a recalcitrant owner can resist a CPO. Some owners fail to respond and disappear. They are particularly threatened by any attempt by a community organisation to engage with them. That is frustrating, since to win a CPO case the public body has to be able to show that it has tried and failed to resolve the future of the property by negotiation with the owner. But the owner may be in a tax haven overseas and the property in the hands of a nominee. Alternatively, the owner may launch a series of frivolous appeals or put forward new and ludicrous planning proposals. He can try to block a CPO by claiming that he is about to start work—but the work is never begun, or sometimes it is started and then the owner just walks away.
The 2015 locality investigations under the Community Assets in Difficult Ownership project illustrate how easy it is for ownership to become a block on action. Local authorities have powers to act, of course, including compulsory purchase powers, but many feel that the process is simply too complex, too expensive and too slow. The costs are high because in addition to the compensation to be paid, the CPO may also have to be fought through the courts or at a lengthy public inquiry. There is every incentive for the owner to prolong the case. The risks arise from the possibility of the case being lost, the delays and the unpredictable costs; and sometimes by the time the CPO is confirmed, the other policy objectives which drove the process may have changed.
Another issue is that community organisations lack specialist knowledge and advice, which is a particular problem when what is needed is investment to establish the viability of a project in the first place, so it is all the more to the credit of organisations like the Heritage of London Trust, because when such bodies undertake a project like saving St. George’s Garrison Church, it is very hard work and a triumph when it is achieved. We have other outstanding local authorities like Great Yarmouth, which has made tremendous progress in bringing its buildings back to life.
The new clause is very simple and I commend it to the Minister. In effect, it means that where a charitable body that could be a buildings preservation trust or any form of charitable body, such as a community interest trust with conservation objectives, has given a deed of obligation to the local planning authority to pay the costs of acquisition, which are set by the district valuer, the local authority must exercise a CPO. The deed would be in effect a form of contract, even though I understand that it can be a unilateral undertaking such as those attached to planning applications. The costs of acquisition will involve all the transaction costs, thus removing any risks associated with taking over the building itself. In some cases of extreme negligence, the costs have been assessed as nil. Clearly, no sensible charity would enter into such an obligation without having the capacity to cover the costs, and a local authority will do its due diligence as well. Once the deed of obligation is in place, the local authority is then required to exercise the compulsory purchase order that will enable the conservation charity to acquire the building, which will then be restored and brought to life. Ultimately, the decision will rest with the Secretary of State, who will decide on the basis of the risks removed and the possibilities raised.
The amendment would achieve two things. It would first break the logjam of no one wanting to undertake any initiative because of the costs of acquisition. Secondly, it would provide a greater degree of certainty for community groups to enable them to undertake creative projects for the benefit of all. The amendment is carefully crafted and has been the subject of a great deal of legal advice and consultation with conservation and heritage bodies. It is also central to the principles of this Bill, and to localism as a political construct. It would free up resources for housing and enterprise and for vital community development at the heart of communities. It would serve our heritage in the best possible way by making it part of the future, and it comes with the moral backing of all the national heritage bodies.
The housing White Paper is imminent, and I will be amazed if there is no reference in it to this issue. We know the scale of the challenges facing the country, including those of Brexit, so this is a very timely and plausible proposition. I very much hope that the Minister agrees with me, and I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, although I have taken no part in the previous stages of the Bill, with the leave of Members of the Committee I feel that I should now intervene in support of this amendment which has been so sensibly and compellingly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. Councils in their development plans published so far are still some way away from delivering the Government’s target of 1 million new homes by the end of this Parliament. That is why the green belt is now about to be sacrificed as never before to make way for new housebuilding on a large scale, even if many of the new settlements are euphemistically called “garden villages”. I greatly regret that this is happening while there remains a very significant amount of land designated as brownfield sites, wasteland and former industrial sites.
The amendment draws attention to another excellent source of buildings which can be restored and converted to provide new homes. Up and down the country, there are a great number of listed buildings and buildings within their curtilage which have fallen into a serious state of disrepair. Councils have the power to place compulsory purchase orders on such properties, but most councils never use their powers because they lack the legal expertise to act, they have better claims on their funds, and there are risks that initiating a purchase will drag on for a considerable time, diverting their human resources as well as their available funds.
The example of 549 Lordship Lane, acquired by Southwark Council and restored by Heritage of London Trust to provide five attractive and affordable homes, is typical of the many opportunities which this amendment is designed to unlock. Councils will be compelled to use their compulsory purchase powers where the costs have already been guaranteed by a committed charitable trust. They would quickly develop the necessary legal and other professional skills and be emboldened actively to approach charities seeking to commit funds to restore derelict buildings, thus removing eyesores which blight the landscape and alleviating pressure on the green belt. To place a duty on councils to exercise their powers under the circumstances covered by the amendment, it follows that there would be an increased need to assist councils by the creation of a central advisory body to help them obtain access to the relevant expertise. Perhaps the Minister might tell the Committee whether he thinks the Government could assist with this. It is to be welcomed that heritage organisations are already working together to provide an evidence base which will justify and promote interventions of the kind the amendment is designed to enable. I hope that the Minister will recognise the benefits that the amendment would provide, and I look forward to hearing his response.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the North of England Civic Trust and of the Historic Chapels Trust. Both organisations restore historic buildings and put them to use in very much the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, described. I welcome her amendment, because it draws attention to a particular problem: the reluctance of local authorities to use their compulsory purchase powers when listed buildings are in advancing disrepair, which in the end will lead them to a state where it is claimed that they can no longer be put right.
I have experienced that in Northumberland, with a notable building called Surrey House, which was a 17th-century building rebuilt in the 18th century, in which the Earl of Surrey was alleged to have stayed on the eve of the Battle of Flodden. I have not yet seen the evidence for that claim, but it is widely made. I imagine he got a good night’s sleep, because he had a pretty good day the following day—from his point of view. There was an application to demolish the building in 1970, and the whole thing dragged on for year after year. The local authority then was a local authority of 26,000 people, and was very ill-resourced to tackle something like this. I thought the problem might be resolved when we moved to a unitary system, where we had a much larger local authority, but it still felt the same constraint. It might go to the extent of urgent works notices, it would be reluctant to go to the extent of a full repairs notice, and it would be extremely unwilling to go to the extent of compulsory purchase.
The lack of legal expertise and the fear of uncertain court costs that may result act as a very severe deterrent to local authorities to use their powers. The result is that you have a meaningless sanction, where owners know that local authorities are reluctant to take the ultimate sanction against them; they can just play the system. It is appalling that this should happen in the type of case particularly covered by the amendment, where there is a charitable organisation in position, ready even, to guarantee the costs of restoring the property. We should not allow that situation to continue.
More generally, even if the Minister is reluctant to accept the amendment in the terms in which it appears, I hope he will recognise that there is a problem here. We have left the system for dealing with neglected historic buildings without a realistic sanction. The sanction has effectively been destroyed by the reluctance of many authorities to take these difficult steps. I wish they had not been so weak in this respect, although I understand some of the reasons, particularly with very small authorities. Unless we do something about it, we will continue to waste wonderful buildings which should be retained and can be of great service to the community.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Andrews. She ably outlined why the Government should give a sympathetic response to it. I was pleased to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talk about 549 Lordship Lane. I know the property, referred to as the Concrete House. The council has won an award for its work there: it bought it, did a good restoration and now uses it for shared ownership. I support the amendment. I am conscious of the time and I hope that the Minister will also want to respond quickly.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, at this stage of our flight, the co-pilot takes over. After a very smooth passage with my noble friend at the controls, there may well be some turbulence. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this amendment. She chaired English Heritage for four years, so she has a proud record in the conservation world. I applaud the way she is carrying forward that commitment by tabling the amendment to insert a new clause. She is well qualified and well informed on this issue. As she said, listed buildings are an important part of our environment: they create a sense of identity in a locality and support local economies by attracting visitors. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard said, this offers the opportunity to provide housing in some restoration projects. I also commend the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the work done by him in his particular field.
We all support the objectives of the amendment, but there may be alternative routes to the common destination. The noble Baroness has been a CLG Minister herself, so she may feel some empathy for someone who, having listened to a popular and powerful case for a well-argued amendment, picks up the departmental brief which has at the top, “Resist”. I have two points of my own to make. Listening to the debate, I wondered if there had ever been a case where a charitable trust had done exactly what the noble Baroness had suggested—raised all the funds and then presented the local authority with an indemnity—and the local authority had refused to go ahead with a CPO. If there was such an example it would be relevant to the case that is being made.
My other thought was that, having sat patiently through the debate on this Bill, I have noticed a recurrent criticism that we are fettering the discretion of local authorities. We are accused of not trusting them, of passing primary legislation which makes them do things. The amendment does have the words “a planning authority must”. What is the view of the LGA, which is very well represented in the Committee? Does it welcome the discretion of its members being fettered in the way that the amendment seeks to do? Having said that, the noble Baroness was quite right to remind us that local authorities have the ability to compulsorily purchase listed buildings that are in need of repair. It is an important weapon in their armoury to protect our built heritage.
If one looks at the guidance provided by the Government, paragraph 16 of the compulsory purchase guidance notes states that it specifically provides for local authorities to consider requests from community groups—which could include heritage trusts—to use their compulsory purchase powers to acquire community assets that are in danger and, under the guidance, local authorities are required to consider such requests and to provide a formal and reasoned response.
In a sense, the onus is already on the local authorities to explain why—were they presented with the sort of offer that we have just heard—they feel they cannot accept it. It is also the case, as the noble Baroness said, that heritage trusts have access to grant funds and other sources of income to enable them to carry out the preservation of listed buildings and bring them back into use. What this amendment seeks to do is, in effect, to lock in a statutory embrace the heritage trusts on the one hand with the resources and the local authorities with the CPO powers on the other. I am slightly worried that this might undermine the collaborative approach which I think works quite well at the moment. As has already been said, the CPO power exists, but I am not convinced that the relationship between the local authority and the trust would be assisted if the local authority knew that the trust had this sanction behind it to compel it to do something.
On the point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, Historic England is working with local authorities and giving them advice and financial and technical support in many cases where listed buildings are falling into disrepair, enabling a satisfactory solution to be arrived at. That collaborative approach is the way forward. A good example, which if it were not 7.56 pm I would share with the Committee, is Hastings Pier which was restored in exactly the way that has been outlined.
The noble Baroness has commented that absentee owners are difficult to deal with or if the owners or reputed owners do not engage with the compulsory purchase process it can proceed without them, and the acquiring authority only has to make a reasonable attempt to find them. That attempt includes information in CPO notices simply displayed on site, as well as being sent to the last known address of the owners—then they can proceed.
So far as the trust is concerned, the cost of compulsory purchase is not always easy to assess. There could be court challenges and it could end up in the High Court. The defence of a legal challenge would fall to the trust and any failure of a trust to meet its responsibility to indemnify the local authority would put the trust’s future in jeopardy and the local authority would be liable for those costs.
In a nutshell, the Government are not convinced that the noble Baroness’s amendment to compel a local authority to proceed with a compulsory purchase would have a significant effect on the use of the CPO legislation. The current process provides a balanced approach, allowing local authorities and heritage trusts to enter into mutually acceptable arrangements. It encourages collaboration between local authorities and heritage trusts, and as I have said, that approach could be jeopardised if an element of compulsion were to be introduced.
I am happy to reflect on the dilemma which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, outlined about local authorities’ reluctance to take things forward. In the meantime, with the greatest respect, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Andrews
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I detect a sympathy beneath his detailed rebuttal. I am also very grateful to Members who supported the amendment. The points the Minister made are worth reading properly and I will go on to do some research in connection with the heritage bodies about the response of local authorities and the effectiveness of the guidance. There is an argument which says that advice and guidance are fine as far as they go, but what we are looking at here is case after case across the country of deep frustration, of failure of capacity and of fairly old resources. I take the point about an element of compulsion, but there comes a point in all forms of policy where something more draconian needs to be considered as part of a conversation about what the alternatives are, otherwise we will never move away from the sort of stasis that we have had over sometimes magnificent buildings but which are a blight and an eyesore when they could be so productive in the community. We will rise to the challenge and see whether we can come back. We may be back before Report with evidence, but in the event, I certainly withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Her Majesty The Queen’s Sapphire Jubilee
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships’ House, I take this opportunity to congratulate Her Majesty the Queen on the 65th anniversary of her accession to the Throne.
Brexit: Customs and Border Staff
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of additional public employees needed to meet the requirements of Brexit, in particular in customs and border control.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the White Paper published last week set out the Government’s priorities and the broad strategy for exiting the EU. There is a number of options as to how EU migration and customs checks might work once we have exited the EU. We are considering these options, so it would be wrong to set out a further position at this stage.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, half of Britain’s trade is currently within the single market, so presumably customs checks and the space needed for them will have to be considerably expanded. Two-thirds of visitors come from the EU and the EEA, so I assume that the long queues that we already have at the external border for people going through hard border controls will be immensely lengthened and that we will need to treble the number of border staff. Are the Government already beginning to plan for the extra space and staff they need? If they cannot recruit enough, perhaps we will need to recruit border agency people from eastern Europe.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government will certainly be prepared, if need be, in the way that the noble Lord said. However, the advent of e-passport gates at airports has made it quicker to get through the border, and of course the facial recognition checks at those gates have proved to be very efficient.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a range of options, there must surely be a range of costs—guestimates—available to the Government. What are they? Perhaps the Minister can help me but I cannot recall the costs used by the Brexiteers during the referendum campaign. Perhaps she can refresh my memory.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, of course there will be a range of options, none of which am I in a position to cost or comment on today, but they will become clearer. I am sure that the noble Lord has read the White Paper on the broad principles as we go forward.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that removing exit checks from our borders in 1998 was a huge mistake? Does she also agree that, Brexit or no Brexit, we now need to bring back immediately exit checks to our borders so that we are on top of things from a security point of view and from the point of view of being in control of immigration, with EU and non-EU citizens being scanned in and scanned out? In fact, I could recommend a whole list of Indian IT companies that could do the job.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord. He is right about exit checks. They were reintroduced last year and will provide some very useful information, not least on immigration.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell me how many additional public employees are employed by the Government to answer questions from people who do not accept the result of the referendum?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The figures differ at various times. I can say to my noble friend—and I am sure he will agree with me—that we will be well equipped to deal with our borders when the time comes.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, what exactly do the Government mean when they say that under Brexit we will have control of our borders? Does it mean that people who should not do so will not enter this country? If so, how will the Government achieve that, bearing in mind that we are not in a position to stop illegal immigration at present—as the road haulage industry makes clear—despite the present level of co-operation with the French authorities?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there is more than just the French authorities to consider, although we have worked very hard and in good co-operation with the French. Control of our borders means just that—control of who comes in and who goes out. However, I accept that no system is perfect.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, would not the introduction of ID cards be the cheapest way to try to deal with this problem? Would not the Government’s time be better spent looking at the proposals and seeing how effective they would be in introducing controls on our borders?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In short, no. We have moved beyond the ID card in terms of the amount of information we have on passenger movement. Technology now has almost negated the need for what the noble Lord talks about, which was quite some time ago.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, there has been a 25% reduction in funding per passenger for the UK Border Force since 2011. The Minister mentioned that e-gates—automatic gates—at airports for EEA nationals mean that the reduction in funding has not resulted in a lessening of security. Can she say what will happen when we leave the European Union and EEA nationals will no longer be subject to this, rather worryingly termed, soft border regime?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the number of full-time Border Force employees has ranged from approximately 7,600 to 8,100 in the past few years. As I said earlier, there may have been a reduction perhaps last year in workforce because it is within that range but e-gates and other infrastructure improvements have improved the system. In 2016-17 we invested £68 million in capital for infrastructure improvements.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, have the Government worked out how much we will be saving by not having to send an endless stream of Ministers and their civil servants over to Brussels to nod through its useless and damaging legislation and by not having to enact it thereafter? Did not the British people vote specifically for more border control, which therefore becomes something of a priority, does it not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The British public certainly did vote for more border control and this Government are very clear that we need to balance immigration with the skills that we need to provide services in this country. In terms of the savings, experts have given all sorts of figures and I will not at this point try to guess.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that asking rational and legitimate questions about process is not the same as not accepting the result of the referendum?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Asking rational questions is perfectly legitimate; noble Lords tend to ask rational questions, and that is totally legitimate. There is a wide range of views in both your Lordships’ House and the other place but I think we all accept the outcome of the referendum.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a UK border official at Charles de Gaulle airport once told me that when a passport on occasion appears in front of them that is illegal, they give it back to the French authorities and that passport often reappears, carried by somebody else, in order to try to get access to the UK?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Viscount tells me something that I did not know, but the e-gates are actually very accurate at marrying up the person with the identity in the passport.
Brexit: Aerospace Industry
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Soley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of Brexit on the aerospace industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, we have engaged with the UK aerospace sector and are aware of the potential issues that the UK’s exit from the EU may have. Our aim is to keep the UK the leading aerospace nation in Europe and we will continue our long-standing support for the sector. That includes a matched co-funding of some £3.9 billion for a research and development programme to 2026.
Lord Soley (Lab)
Are the Government aware of the cross-border problems with the supply chain in aerospace? I am concerned about the European Aviation Safety Agency—where we play a key role—which certifies the safety of aircraft products. That is a profoundly important area. I am not sure—and this applies to other agencies, too—how the Government plan to move that forward in agencies, particularly where we play the lead role and will no longer be able to do so after Brexit.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the EASA is indeed extremely important, as are other European agencies. We will negotiate with those agencies over the next two years to come to a sensible arrangement.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a shame that the party opposite is so slow in catching up with its leadership?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I wonder what leadership my noble friend is referring to. I am sure that the party opposite is wholly united behind its leader.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister well knows, a defence strategy refresher paper is to be published in the middle of the year. Never mind Brexit; is he aware that if that paper fails, as did the national strategy, to make a clear commitment on behalf of the Government in favour of retaining and preserving Britain’s capacity to design and manufacture its own helicopters, as we have done for 70 years for the benefit of our Armed Forces and our export markets, there is a real danger that that capacity will be lost, together with hundreds of jobs in Yeovil and elsewhere and a crucial part of the national aerospace asset? Why can everybody else see that danger but the Government seem blind to it?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I do not agree with the last part of the noble Lord’s question. The capacity to manufacture helicopters in the UK is extremely important and the MoD is very much committed to doing that. As the noble Lord says, we will publish a refresh strategy later in the year, which I am sure will make that clear.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the European Aviation Safety Agency plays a crucial role in excluding from European airspace and European airports any aircraft that originates from countries or companies that have poor safety records? By that means it safeguards the security and well-being of people right across this continent. Because of the importance of that, will the Minister give me an undertaking now that, whatever the other outcomes of Brexit, we will retain full participation in the European Aviation Safety Agency?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I can confirm that safety is absolutely paramount. How that is achieved between the workings of the CAA and the EASA will have to be resolved over the next two years.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, another European agency of crucial importance to safety, which the Minister will know about from his previous role, is the EMA—the medicines evaluation agency currently located in London. It is important not only for the NHS but for the pharmaceutical industry. When the Minister is looking at future co-operation and arrangements, will he ensure that that agency and our relationships with it are also safeguarded?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the relationship between the MHRA and the EMA, similar to that between the CAA and the EASA, is absolutely critical. The MHRA, from my memory, does 40% of the work of the EMA—so the relationship between those two organisations will indeed be very important.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, as one of the largest contributors to the European Investment Bank, what influence have we had over the money that it has just given to the European Defence Fund, which was set up in November, and the subsequent allocation by the European Defence Agency for defence and aerospace procurement all around Europe?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord raises such an interesting question that I cannot actually answer him, so I will have to write to him afterwards.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister explain why, in the case of the air and the medical agencies that have just been discussed, the Government are looking into how this can be integrated with Brexit, but they have already made a decision to leave Euratom without any debate at all? They are all the same kind of safety regulators: what is the difference?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I think that the difference is that the Euratom treaty was inextricably linked to the original European Communities treaty. When we exercise Article 50, it will automatically have an effect on the Euratom agreement, whereas the other issues that we are looking at are regulatory issues in which we have a much greater degree of discretion about how we work together in the future.
Residential Care
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of residential care home beds that were available in (1) 2005, and (2) 2015.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I am informed by the Care Quality Commission that, as of 31 March 2015, there were 464,110 nursing and residential care home places in England. According to the annual reports of the Commission for Social Care Inspection, the predecessor to the CQC, the equivalent figure as of 31 March 2005 was 451,288.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but will he ensure that the number of care home places remains at a sufficiently high level to enable people to be discharged from hospital when it is deemed safe to do so? If there is currently a shortage of care home beds in, for example, rural counties such as North Yorkshire, will his department work very closely with local authorities up and down the country to ensure that people can leave hospital and go to a care home when that is appropriate?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank my noble friend for making a very important point. Clearly, the capacity in the care home sector is important for ensuring that there is a proper flow of patients out of hospitals and into a more appropriate setting. In regard to the county that she was talking about, North Yorkshire, I think the overall number of beds has been broadly flat over the period in question, but there has been an increase in domiciliary and supported accommodation, which is increasingly the way that care is being structured across the country.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that where there is a shortage of residential or, indeed, nursing home care beds, the onus on care falls on the families? Will he take this opportunity to update his honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Health, who last week exhorted the nation to care for its elderly relatives? He apparently forgot that there are 6.5 million people who already do so at great personal cost to themselves.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right to highlight the work that carers do. There is now, of course, a national carers strategy to support those who are supporting their families, often in very difficult circumstances. The point that my honourable friend in the other place was trying to make was that there is an important role for families to continue doing so—in the way that parents care for children, children should do the same for their parents in return.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is absolutely evident that the care homes are facing an existential problem. Their costs have increased by 30% in the last year with the introduction of the national living wage, and their profits have significantly reduced. Some 1,500 homes have closed over the last six years. There is a major problem going on, and it is not good enough to exhort local councils to pick up the gap when their funding has been severely curtailed, which is also not helping care homes. When will the Government get a grip of this very serious crisis?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am pleased that this Government have introduced the national living wage, which is supported, I believe, across this House and the other place. The noble Baroness is quite right that there is an impact on social care home providers, many of the staff of which are paid at that level. The truth is that there is a cost pressure, of course, in the social care sector—that is one of the reasons that the precept is rising quicker than it would have done otherwise—and the better care fund has been created to support more care provision in the appropriate setting that people want to have it in.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, with applications for nursing degrees having gone down by 10,000 and with planned immigration restrictions being imposed, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that we have not only sufficient beds but the caring and nursing staff to look after those who are using the beds?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The number of workers in the social care sector has increased by about 165,000 over the last five years: there is an increased demand because we have a growing population. I think that we are going to have another opportunity to talk about the impact on nursing degrees tomorrow, so I do not want to spoil the party. As for the impact of the European Union, of course, a significant section of the workforce comes from the European Union but we are increasing the number of nursing training places and there is also now a nursing apprenticeship scheme which is providing 1,000 places for people who want to enter the profession by that route.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that people in acute hospitals would not need to be there if there was somewhere they could go very soon after being admitted to hospital, such as rehabilitation centres? Many countries have small, nurse-led rehab centres; many of our smaller hospitals which are being closed down could be used in this way. People could go there as soon as they can out of the acute hospital sector. If we did that, we could solve some of the problems and we would have the right sort of care for a lot of frail people who are at the moment accused of blocking hospitals—they do, but it is not their fault.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness raises an incredibly important point. Patients end up in hospitals for a variety of reasons and it is not always the best setting for them. The kind of care she describes is important; it might be rehab centres or cottage hospitals. Indeed, what we are seeing through the sustainability and transformation plans are ideas for intermediate care and step-down care that provide exactly the sorts of things she is talking about.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Does my noble friend recognise that when care users go into a residential care home their own home is very often included in the means test, even if subject to deferred payment? However, if they receive their care at home, their own home is exempted. This both reduces the resources available to support care and also creates a disincentive to go into care homes for people for whom it might be the best result. Does my noble friend recognise this as an issue we should look at?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The most important thing when providing care is that it is in a setting that people want and feel comfortable with. There is, of course, a trend towards more domiciliary and supported housing for precisely that reason.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, what is the Minister’s view of Disability United’s recent FOI finding on NHS continuing care that a large number of CCGs are saying they will not support the care of chronically ill people in their homes if it is cheaper for them to be in residential care? How does this sit with the reality of the state of the residential care industry, with bed shortages in many areas so that patients cannot be transferred from hospital, and with the Government’s aim of giving chronically and terminally ill people choice about where they want to be cared for, particularly at the end of life?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. There is clearly a need for additional capacity, because there is a much greater population. The number of people aged over 85 has increased by about 25% in the last five years and that will increase at a similar rate over the next five years, so more capacity is needed both at hospital level, in residential and nursing homes, and at a domiciliary level too.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, there are worrying trends of discrimination suffered by people in vulnerable groups, people with HIV, those who are ageing and others. Therefore, will the Minister work with care providers to ensure that such discrimination, ignorance and stigma are absolutely outwith the provision of such services?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I completely concur with the noble Lord’s point. He is right, of course: there should be no such discrimination on those grounds or any other. I will certainly investigate that and see if there is anything worrying going on and write to him.
UK Sports: Funding
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have assessed the funding allocations to individual sports from 2017 onwards announced by UK Sport following the Rio Olympics in 2016.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, decisions on elite funding allocations are for UK Sport. Its no-compromise approach has delivered our greatest Olympic performance in a century. However, it is crucial that funding is invested strategically in the right sports, the right athletes and the right support programmes. Team GB’s historic medal haul in Rio was an amazing achievement and our athletes made the country very proud. I hope that this success will continue through to Tokyo 2020.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, badminton is enjoyed by over half a million people regularly in this country because it is one of the most accessible and affordable competitive sports. Those half a million people cheered when Team GB’s badminton team won the medal that they had targeted in Rio last summer. Yet all their funding—all of it—has been dismissed by UK Sport for the period up to the Tokyo Olympic Games, while sports that won no medals have received millions of pounds. This is surely wrong, and while I recognise and support the view that government should not routinely intervene in the decisions of UK Sport, there is surely a case, on this issue, for Ministers to haul in UK Sport, ask it what is going on and make sure that it makes the right decisions in the public interest for sport in this country in the future.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I start by acknowledging that Chris Langridge and Marcus Ellis did a fantastic job in winning a medal at the Olympics, and deserve a lot of credit. The problem is, first, that this is a matter for UK Sport; and, secondly, that it is not right that Ministers should be involved when the appeals process is still going on. The next stage of the appeals process is going on today and there is yet another stage that badminton can go on to. One reason that those athletes did so well was the potential for winning medals in badminton: since it has been an Olympic sport, Britain has won three medals, China has won 41 and Korea and Indonesia 19 each. So UK Sport took this very difficult decision on that basis purely of the ability and likelihood of winning medals.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether UK Sport is obliged to give reasons for its decisions, and how the appeals process works?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, first, UK Sport deals with the national governing body of the sport before the decisions are made—so there is a lot of consultation with the individual sport. These decisions, therefore, do not come as a surprise—or at least they should not. With regard to the appeals process, the sport can make a presentation to the board of UK Sport; that is taking place for several sports—eight, I believe—today and tomorrow. If that does not go the way that the sport wants, it can go to a three-man independent board of Sport Resolutions.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the funding of sport is crucially linked to the lottery? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the National Lottery retains its pre-eminent position? The first step might be a statement that the other competitors have to pay out at least as much to good causes as it does.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord is right that funding for sport is crucially dependent on the lottery. The other problem that UK Sport has is that it has to make its allocations four years in advance for the Olympic cycle. That is why DCMS has underwritten the potential lack of funding from the lottery so that it can produce a plan for the athletes for 2020.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend recognise a tension between the desirable objectives of engaging as many people as possible in health-giving and character-building sport, and of getting as many gold medals as possible? If so, which has priority in the minds of both the sporting executive and the Government?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
There is of course a tension. UK Sport’s no-compromise approach is purely about delivering the maximum number of medals. That is not necessarily what is good for public health, for example, but the two are interrelated. I think everyone realised at London and Rio that when Team GB did well, there was a great incentive to get out and participate in sport. Sport England, which has roughly four times the funding, has a new strategy encouraging people to get active. That may or may not include sport—the main thing is to get out of the front door and take some exercise.
Baroness Billingham (Lab)
UK Sport has the role of making sure that we have excellence internationally. But what the Government are thinking about, because some of their decisions surely have to be about increasing the number of participants, particularly young people? Given that that is the case, what is the Government’s view of the fact that there is no allocation to team sports, which are what schools provide? Surely it is time that we looked now at having more participation by young people in team sports in schools.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree with the noble Baroness. That is why the Government’s sports strategy included allocating responsibility to Sport England for those aged from 14-plus down to five-plus. The stress, as I said, is not only on sports but on activity. At the moment, just under 40% of the over-16 population are either inactive or insufficiently active.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, after the fantastic performance of Britain in the Rio Olympics, there was, as I heard, a shortfall of £3 million or £4 million for our athletes to go to the Commonwealth Games in Australia? Can he assure us that this shortfall no longer exists and that our athletes will be fully funded to go to the Commonwealth Games?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I was not aware of the shortfall but I will find out from my department and write to the noble Lord.
Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill
Monday 6th February 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Act 2017 View all Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 February 2017 - (3 Feb 2017)
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill
Monday 6th February 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Act 2017 View all Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 February 2017 - (3 Feb 2017)
Digital Economy Bill
Monday 6th February 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 161KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
Baroness Janke
“Review of sale on the internet of counterfeit electrical appliances
(1) Within six months of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission a review of the sale on the internet of counterfeit electrical appliances.(2) The review must consider whether operators of trading websites that allow individual sellers to use those websites to sell electrical items should be required to report to the police and trading standards authorities any instances of the selling of counterfeit electrical appliances which are arranged through their website.(3) The Secretary of State must publish the report of the review, and lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament.”
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, it might perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if we had a short pause so that those not engaged in the next business may leave the Chamber.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 75 and 76, which deal with the sale of counterfeit electrical goods on the internet. There is growing concern about this practice, which has increased massively over the past 20 years—by 10,000%—and is continuing to increase at around 15% a year. The industry of counterfeit goods is worth something like £1.3 billion, according to the Electrical Safety Council, and 64% of these goods are sold on the internet. People believe that they are buying reputable brands, as they are dealing with an online retailer that is well known and they assume that the goods are genuine.
The fact that there are so many accidents and so many problems with these goods is another reason that we are bringing these amendments today, as we see this Bill as an opportunity to do something about this practice. The goods are often dangerous. The Electrical Safety Council calculates that something like 7,000 domestic fires are caused by faulty goods, and many of these are counterfeit goods. The practice of selling these goods undermines genuine brands and causes great difficulty within the industry. Faulty goods can also cause great harm directly to individual people.
These amendments seek to give some responsibility to online retailers to report to trading standards and the police goods that they know to be counterfeit. The second amendment requires the Government to provide a review and report on the extent of this practice as well as its impact on the economy. I beg to move.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, my name is also to this amendment, so I support my noble friend Lady Janke. I declare that I am a patron of Electrical Safety First.
My noble friend has stated the problem very well. The ask from this amendment is very modest: we are asking the Government to establish a review. It may not be appropriate for that to be in the Bill, but it gives us an opportunity at this stage for the Government to come back and tell us what they are going to do about counterfeit goods, which are clearly a fast-growing problem.
Our particular concern is with electrical goods, although I could probably add gas goods as well. Counterfeiting clearly is a problem, and I do not minimise it, but a counterfeit handbag is unlikely to kill you; counterfeit electrical goods most certainly can, and do, kill people. I happened to spend my Sunday reading the trading standards journal TS Review, as I imagine many of your Lordships would have been doing. I read that,
“More than 99 per cent…fake Apple chargers failed a basic safety test. Twelve were so poorly designed and constructed that they posed a risk of lethal electrocution to the user”.
On the same page, it is reported that the London Fire Brigade has stated that,
“Across London, 2,072 fires involving white goods have been recorded since January 2011, with more than £118m estimated to have been lost from London’s economy as a result”.
This clearly is a problem, not only to those who produce the products legitimately. Indeed, I noticed that eBay, of all places, is setting up an authentication scheme so that the proper producers can have their goods authenticated by experts as being not counterfeit. This indicates a huge problem.
The purpose of these amendments is to seek a commitment from the Government that they will establish reviews into goods sold and, in particular, goods sold on the internet. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us, first, that the Government recognise this increasing problem and, secondly, if they do, what they are going to do about it.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that we recognise this problem, although I have to admit that I certainly did not spend my Sunday reading the trading standards review.
Amendments 75 and 76 seek to impose a commitment to review and report on the sale and cost of counterfeit electricals being sold online. The sale of counterfeit goods of all kinds, not just electrical goods, has, as noble Lords said, the potential to cause consumer and economic harm by damaging legitimate traders and often supporting organised crime.
This is an issue the Government take extremely seriously, and that is why the Intellectual Property Office is committed to tackling counterfeiting of all kinds. We do this by working through our IP attaché network in manufacturing countries, targeting import routes in conjunction with UK Border Force and targeting UK sellers and distributors along with trading standards and police services across the UK.
We have heard reference to the challenges of the online world and sales via social media. We absolutely recognise that, and that is why we have supported some very successful work through Operation Jasper, working with police and trading standards to tackle the sale of counterfeits through social media sites.
The full range of work undertaken by government in this area is outlined in the IPO’s IP enforcement strategy, which was published last year. This strategy makes a number of commitments that are very relevant to the ideas proposed in these amendments. The strategy commits the Government to further improving the reporting of IP crime as well as to developing a credible methodology to measure the harm caused. Work is also ongoing with academics to build the structures necessary for commercial entities to share information that they hold about levels of infringement in a safe manner. The IPO also hosts the IPO crime intelligence hub, which is able to receive, develop and disseminate intelligence on IP crime, whether online or physical. The hub is in regular contact with the UK’s leading online sales platforms, and they are continually developing better mechanisms for sharing information about sellers and products.
In addition to this, the IPO, on behalf of the IP crime group, which is a collection of government departments, industry bodies and enforcement agencies which work to tackle IP crime, publishes an extensive report each year on a wide range of IP infringement, including counterfeit electrical goods. The IPO is also working with Citizens Advice to see how it can offer better information to consumers so that they in turn can make more informed purchasing choices. Finally, the IPO is working to encourage trade associations voluntarily to share information about sales of counterfeits that raise safety concerns.
In light of all the things that the Government and others are involved in, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Janke
I thank the Minister for the information she has shared with us. It is very encouraging. However, there is a feeling that this issue has been around for a very long time and that perhaps stronger enforceability is needed to do something about it. I read that eBay is now producing its own mechanism for preventing the sale of counterfeit goods and that other online retailers will be looking at that, but it still seems that the ability to enforce action on this is missing. I hope to look at the work the Government are already doing on this and consider its future contribution and then consider whether to return with this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
“Copyright and the role of active hosts
(1) The Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 are amended as follows.(2) At the end of Regulation 19 insert—“(2) Where an information society service is storing and providing access to the public copyright protected works, and is playing an active role, including the promotion and optimising the presentation of those works, sub-paragraph (1) shall not apply.(3) The service provider of an active host under sub-paragraph (2) is required to secure licensing agreements with rightsholders.””
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 77, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 79. Amendment 77 probes the Government’s intentions with regard to the recent proposals for an EU directive on copyright in the digital single market. The amendment would clarify that the hosting defence contained within paragraph 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 does not apply to digital services that play an active role in the provision of online content, specifically those user upload services that optimise the presentation and promotion of copyright-protected works. The amendment would require those services to secure licensing agreements with rights holders.
To explain in more detail, many services are passive hosts, which are defined in EU law as those that provide a,
“technical process of operating and giving access to a communication network over which information made available by third parties is transmitted or temporarily stored, for the sole purpose of making the transmission more efficient”.
Examples would include internet service providers such as BT, TalkTalk or Virgin, cloud locker services such as Dropbox, Microsoft’s One Drive or Google Drive, and online bulletin boards such as HootBoard or MyBB. Services such as these are accepted as essential to the operation of the digital market and so quite reasonably have what is called “safe harbour protection”—that is, a limitation of their copyright liability on the basis that they have no knowledge of copyright infringement. On the other hand, there are sites that also give access to works made available by third parties, but actively provide functionality that promotes works, makes recommendations and optimises the upload for the purpose of presentation. It is this functionality that provides users with the ability to find what they want when they want it. These are active hosts. They directly compete with licensed providers. Examples include Facebook, YouTube, Dailymotion, Bandcamp, Vimeo and Metacafe. They should not have safe harbour protection and should be required to secure licencing agreements with rights holders.
Therefore, while there was, and in some areas continues to be, justification for exemptions for passive hosts, like all exemptions they must reflect the balance between the rights of rights holders and users. There is a strong argument that the existing provisions are not sufficiently defined and as a result are open to deliberate misinterpretation. This means that some services can use copyright-protected content to build their businesses without fairly remunerating rights holders. UK Music’s recent report Measuring Music highlighted that the user-uploaded service YouTube, the most frequently used global streaming platform and one that currently benefits from the safe harbour provisions, increased its payments to music rights holders by only 11% in 2015 despite consumption of the service growing by 132%. This further underlines what is called in the trade the “value gap”. The current legal ambiguity and imbalance has created distortions in the digital market with services like YouTube benefiting from these exemptions whereas Apple Music and Spotify, providing similar services, do not. The growing significance of the music streaming market must not go unremarked. Over a four-year period, the UK music industry has grown by 17%, and during the same period, there has been a massive shift from consumers owning music to streaming it. The value of subscription streaming services jumped from £168 million in 2014 to £251 million in 2015.
There has been a number of legal cases seeking to clarify the situation. In 2011, in the L’Oréal v eBay case, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that online marketplaces cannot benefit from the hosting exemption where they play an active role, for example by promoting and optimising content. This amendment seeks merely to clarify what should already apply in the law right across the EU, including in this country. However, some services are still arguing that they are not active hosts, and as a result, avoid licences or are underlicensed, hence the need for the clarification that may be provided by this probing amendment.
There is another reason why we need greater clarity from the Government. Initially, the Government made it clear that they believed:
“Clarification of terms used in the Directive would, we believe, help to address … concerns”,
about the active/passive host issues. However, in a letter to the EU institutions in April last year, the then intellectual property Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, argued in relation to digital services that,
“we should avoid introducing legislation that might act as a barrier to the development of new digital business models and create obstacles to entry and growth in the European digital market”.
This probing amendment seeks to ensure that that sort of view does not preclude strong and robust positions being taken in support of safe harbour clarification. The proposals in the draft EU directive in this regard are welcome, and we ask that the UK Government continue to support the clarification in the law that the draft directive seeks and that they continue to engage in this important process.
The referendum result and the path towards Brexit raise many issues in relation to these proposals. It is highly conceivable that we will be Brexiting at the very time that Europe begins to adopt copyright rules for the digital age, so an opportunity to clarify UK law will be lost as a consequence of other factors. It is therefore necessary to consider how we can take this opportunity of having a Digital Economy Bill to safeguard these important principles once we leave the European Union. I hope very much that the Minister will confirm that the Government are committed to implementing the draft directive, and Article 13 and Recital 38, into UK law, if they are not implemented by the point that we leave the European Union. Finally, I am well aware that the Government have been consulting stakeholders on these issues. I hope we get a commitment from the Government to publish the consultation and that the new IP Minister, Jo Johnson, will commit to a meeting with representatives of the music industry and others to discuss these issues.
Briefly, we on these Benches fully support Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and I have also signed. I have no intention of stealing the thunder of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and will leave him to explain the importance of the amendment, which seeks simply to help the Government achieve their own manifesto commitment to reduce copyright infringement and ensure that search engines do not link to the most offending sites.
I will say merely that the Government have already hosted a number of round tables to seek ways forward, and some sources are telling us that a voluntary agreement for a code of practice is close to finalisation. If that is true then I am delighted to hear it, but this amendment would not preclude a voluntary agreement. Already many have argued to us that tabling the amendment may have helped to speed up the process towards a voluntary agreement with teeth, but the amendment would not do anything other than ensure that we had a backstop mechanism in the event of a failure to get a voluntary agreement or if the voluntary agreement fails. I hope that on that basis Amendment 79 will also be considered seriously by the Government.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it is extremely kind of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath to introduce my amendment for me, saying that he was not going to speak to it and then covering all the points I was going to make. That means we will move a little faster than we would otherwise have done. I think I can limit my speech to three points, in the sure and certain knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will cover any points that I do not cover in great detail.
We understand that there is a voluntary code in circulation that has been offered to all parties, and it is thought that it might be signed some time this week—at least, that is the deadline that the Government have given. If that is the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, says, then that is obviously good news and takes us a step down the road, but my amendment would be necessary if not everyone who has been offered this signs up to it, which I think is quite likely. There may be new entrants and other companies that participate in this area for which the activities that facilitate copyright infringement by users will remain a problem, and of course there may be changes in technology that we cannot even anticipate at this stage that may make it necessary, as adumbrated by the amendment, for the Secretary of State to return to this issue in future. For all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, this is a helpful amendment, intended to ensure that this long-running problem gets solved. I hope very much that the Government feel able to accept it.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, on Amendment 77, over recent years the UK has made great strides in the enforcement of intellectual property, and we are now judged to have one of the best IP enforcement regimes in the world. This is definitely a position that we are keen to maintain, and the Bill sends a clear signal that the Government believe copyright infringement is a serious matter, irrespective of whether it is online or offline. This includes measures to increase the penalty for online copyright infringement from two years to 10 years. We understand that there are concerns in the music industry particularly that online intermediaries need to do more to share revenues fairly with creators, which the amendment seeks to tackle. However, we need to find balanced solutions that provide clarity without undermining basic freedoms or inhibiting the development of innovative digital models.
As the e-commerce directive is EU single-market legislation in origin, we will in effect have to wait until after we exit the EU and then possibly initiate a debate as to whether this regime, or indeed the e-commerce regulations as a whole, is still fit for purpose. We are also wary of making piecemeal changes to this important regime that has helped to foster the development of online services and has been helpful to the development of the UK’s burgeoning tech sector without a proper debate involving all parties.
That said, the current law, including the exemptions from liability, has fostered an open and innovative internet, giving online services the legal certainty required to start up and flourish. This has been good for creators, rights holders, internet businesses and consumers alike. Platforms, like all businesses, have a role to play in helping to remove copyright-infringing material, and there is no place for a system that encourages copyright infringement online. However, the UK Government are fully committed to ensuring that our creative industries receive fair remuneration for their work. We want to see creators remunerated fairly, while encouraging investment in new content and innovative services. We will carry forward these principles when engaging at policy level with the EU while considering our own UK-based solutions.
The Government are clear that we must maintain our rights and obligations as members of the EU until we leave. That means that we carry on making arguments within the EU concerning our preferences for EU law. Once we leave the EU, we may choose to reconsider a range of issues, including the limited liability regime, but for now, government policy remains unchanged. The European Commission has recently published a series of copyright proposals in that area, and we are in the process of carefully considering those proposals. While we remain a member of the EU, we will continue to engage with policy development in this space, alongside considering the development of our own copyright framework.
Amendment 79 would mean that the Government take a power to impose a code of practice on search engines, to dictate how they should work to prevent copyright infringement. The return of that suggestion, which was also discussed in another place, gives me an opportunity to update noble Lords on progress in this important area. Since the idea was last discussed in the other place, IPO officials have chaired a further round-table meeting between search engines and representatives of the creative industries. While there are still elements of detail to be settled, the group is now agreed on the key content of the code and I expect an agreement to be reached very soon. All parties have also agreed that the code should take effect, and the targets in it be reached, by 1 June this year. The search engines involved in this work have been very co-operative, making changes to their algorithms and processes, but also working bilaterally with creative industry representatives to explore the options for new interventions, and how existing processes might be streamlined. I understand that all parties are keen to finalise and sign up to the voluntary agreement, and so we believe there is no need to take a legislative power at this time.
Surely it is better to act on a co-operative basis now, and start tackling this serious issue right away. If, however, a voluntary deal cannot be achieved, we will re-evaluate our options. I hope therefore that the noble Lord is reassured, and feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foster of Bath
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. On the second amendment, my concern is that although she is optimistic that we will have a robust agreement in place, if that does not happen—or if the agreement breaks down at a future date, for whatever reason—she has said merely that the Government will re-evaluate their position. She will be as aware as I am of the difficulty of bringing new legislation before your Lordships’ House to address any decision they might make at this time. The amendment would provide that backstop mechanism if it is needed in the long run, which is why I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss that at further stages of the Bill.
On the first amendment, the Minister has not been able to reassure me that the Government are committed to introducing appropriate legislation if the EU legislation has not been finalised at the time we leave the European Union. I hope therefore that we will have an opportunity to discuss that matter in more detail on a future occasion. For the time being, however, with an opportunity for us to reflect on what the Minister has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Transparency and fairness obligations
(1) Authors, artists and performers (“creators”) shall receive on a regular basis timely, adequate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights as well as subsequent transferees or licensees, and the information shall include information on modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due. (2) The obligation in subsection (1) may be met by complying with a code of practice collectively bargained between relevant representative organisations of creators and the representative organisations of those who exploit their works, taking into account the characteristics of each sector for the exploitation of works.(3) Any such code of practice is to provide that each creator is to be entitled to a statement of income generated under such licence or transfer arrangements at regular intervals during each annual accounting period, and provide an explanation as to how the creator’s remuneration has been calculated referencing any contract terms relevant to the calculation.(4) In the event of failure of a transferee or licensee mentioned in subsection (1) to comply with a code of practice, or in the absence of such a code of practice, the creator shall be entitled to apply to the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court for a detailed account of revenues due to the creator generated from the modes of exploitation referred to in subsection (1), and in the event of failure, the Court may award damages in the amount of any shortfall in the total amount due to him.”
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath has referred to the draft directive on copyrights on the digital single market. Many authors, writers and artists welcome the provisions to balance the playing field for creators announced in that draft directive and would like to see them incorporated in our domestic law through the Digital Economy Bill. Some of my concerns about the timing of the adoption of the directive mirror exactly those mentioned by my noble Friend, Lord Foster.
The directive proposes in article 14 one particularly important safeguard—namely, transparency: a right to regular, timely, adequate and sufficient information on the exploitation of their works and performances from those to whom they have licensed or transferred their rights, including details of modes of exploitation, revenues generated and remuneration due. This right will apply even if copyright has been assigned and will allow authors and performers to assess how their work has been used.
Some assignees and licensees are exemplary, but by no means all. Authors and performers under these provisions will have a right to detailed and full statements on the uses of and revenues from their work, unless such reporting is disproportionate. That in itself would be an enormous improvement on the present situation, whereby authors and artists often do not know how widely their work is used and have no way to check whether payments made to them are correct. This problem can become more acute in the digital age, when work can be disseminated in many ways and there is no physical stock which can be counted to ensure that accounting is correct.
As for music, subscription streaming is set to become the most significant revenue stream for the recorded music market in the near future. Streaming requires a fundamentally new licensing model from those who control the recording and song—lyrical and musical—copyrights, which the digital service providers wish to exploit. A complex model was developed, and is now utilised by most subscription services. The evolution of this licensing process for streaming music has resulted in a number of transparency issues for artists and songwriters which have not yet been fully addressed—not least, the presence of non-disclosure agreements between the digital service providers and the record labels, distributors, publishers and collective management organisations, which mean that artists and songwriters are not always allowed to know the revenue share and minimum guarantee arrangements that each digital service provider uses to calculate what the copyrights from which they benefit are due each month. There is also a lack of clarity over how labels and publishers apply contract terms that impact on how creator payments are calculated.
The amendment would work in a similar fashion to the proposals in the draft directive, ensure that creators can audit the royalties they receive from streaming and other services, and assess the relative merits of different services and business partners. Licensees and assignees already have systems in place for recording usage and revenues and reporting to creators. These systems are increasingly detailed in the digital age, and could easily be adapted to take account of any increased requirements. According to a medium-sized book publisher, reporting on 600 titles on the basis of spreadsheets takes 80 man hours per year, and the average time required for compiling and sending a report on a title is eight minutes. Simpler cases can be dealt with in two to three minutes, while the more difficult ones can take 10 to 15. The advantages far outweigh any cost and would help to make creative careers more attractive. Greater transparency would give a powerful message to consumers as they are generally more willing to pay for copyright-protected works if they know that fair remuneration would reach the original creators.
The directive itself is now subject to further consideration and review and may take 12 to 18 months, at best, to adopt, and perhaps even longer, as my noble friend indicated. As the Minister, or the Minister’s noble friend, reminded me recently, the Government have published a call for evidence on the copyright proposals. When will they take a definite view on the proposals, including these transparency provisions? The UK has an unparalleled opportunity to create a fairer playing field for creators by incorporating these provisions into the Digital Economy Bill, irrespective of whether we want to or can sign up to the directive. The question is whether it will. I beg to move.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I fully support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I do not have much to add to his thorough analysis of the issue other than to say that the right of artists, authors and performers to know what is being done with their work, and to obtain fair remuneration for the exploitation of it, is incontestable. This amendment would, in an effective manner, enshrine that right.
In one sense, information is money. This amendment will doubtless have hidden benefits in that anything that can be of further help to artists, particularly those who are less well off, to survive and thrive, and, perhaps, to become the high earners of the future, is a worthwhile long-term investment and can only be good for the individuals, the creative industries and the UK economy as a whole.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising this issue. Our creative industries ultimately depend on the efforts of authors, musicians and other creators, and I agree with the principle that they should be fairly remunerated when their works are used. We want to create an environment where the UK’s creative industries can continue to thrive and retain their world-leading edge. The creative content tax reliefs are one of the Government’s flagship policies, and the film tax relief alone supported over £1 billion of expenditure in the UK in 2015-16. The Government are also investing in skills to create a pipeline of future talent. Since 2013, we have made available up to £20 million match funding to the skills investment fund to help employers address priority skills needs in the screen sector. Over the last 18 months, this has supported more than 500 graduate placements.
The amendment would require those organisations exploiting copyright works via licences to provide the relevant creators with regular information on their use and the revenue they generate, and states that this obligation could be met by complying with a code of practice determined at sector level. It would also provide creators with recourse to court if these requirements are not adhered to. The principle of transparency is an important element of well-functioning markets. I am aware that some creators and their representatives find it difficult to access information on the use of their works owing, for example, to difficulties in negotiating suitable contractual terms. I am, however, happy to confirm to your Lordships’ House that the Government are already engaged in discussions to address this issue. The European Commission has made proposals in this area as part of its current draft directive on copyright, and the UK will actively engage in these debates while we remain a member of the European Union. As such, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will understand the Government’s wish to allow this process to develop before considering the case for domestic intervention.
I welcome the noble Lord’s recognition in his amendment of the important role that collectively agreed industry standards can play in this space. Creators and publishers alike have highlighted the role that such standards can play in improving transparency and fairness. Examples in the UK include the Publishers Association’s Code of Practice on Author Contracts, and the fair digital deals declaration operated by the Worldwide Independent Network. I believe that it is worth giving careful consideration to the part that these industry-led initiatives can play, and I hope the debate at EU level will be a chance to explore that. With this explanation, and the assurance that these issues are under active consideration, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for an extraordinarily well-crafted response—it seemed to throw bouquets in various directions, but I am not quite sure where the petals will fall at the end of the day. It was splendidly positive at the outset, and I felt a speech on industrial policy for the creative industries might be coming on. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for his very supportive contribution.
The Minister talked about transparency being an important element of a well-functioning market and went on to talk about codes of practice, the Government’s active engagement in discussions of elements of the EU draft directive, and so on, but she never actually agreed that the principle of transparency should be incorporated into UK law. Clearly, if the EU directive is passed within the two-year period after notice of Brexit is given, it may well be incorporated into UK law. However, the Minister did not say, “Yes, and moreover, given the call for evidence, we have heard the evidence on transparency and we fully support that element of the directive”. It was rather a case of saying, “Let’s keep talking and actively engaging”, and so on and so forth. I suspend disbelief slightly given that the Minister supported the principle but I am not sure she went so far as to support its incorporation into law. That is a rather different matter. We may well return to this issue on Report. In the meantime, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“( ) Information disclosed from one specified person to another specified person should be used for the purposes of a specific objective only.( ) Where the information is to be used for purposes other than the specified objective, additional approval must be provided.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this group includes a wide range of amendments and our debate on it will be one of our key debates on this section of the Bill. Clause 30 allows specified persons to share data for a specified objective. Our amendments seek to define and limit this and to ensure that additional approval is required where there is broadening or leakage
My honourable friend Louise Haigh thoroughly scrutinised this provision in the other place. Certainly, it took me most of Saturday to read what was said in that Committee stage. I do not intend to repeat all the arguments that were made—but I give fair warning that it will take me some time to go through these key elements, given that the principles in these clauses have given rise to concern, certainly in your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
I start by saying that we on these Benches are completely in favour of effective data sharing across government to achieve public sector efficiencies, value for money, improved public sector services, improved take-up of benefits for the most vulnerable such as the warm home discount, free school meals and, most importantly, an improved experience for those who use public services. We will come to a lot of those issues in later groups today where we have tabled specific amendments.
The public also support these objectives, but their trust is fragile. In recent years we have seen a number of failures in managing data. The Information Commissioner said in her recent briefing distributed to all noble Lords:
“Transparency and a progressive information rights regime work together to build trust”.
This part of the Bill gives the Government considerable powers to share data. But those building blocks in restoring trust that the Information Commissioner and just about everyone else agree are needed are sadly not mirrored in the Bill. That is the crux of today’s debate.
Instead, the building blocks are covered in regulations and codes of practice. As I said, many, including the Information Commissioner and your Lordships’ DPRRC, have stressed the importance of including such measures in primary legislation as opposed to codes of practice. Having read through all the codes of practice, I sometimes asked myself what we were dealing with. Is this Bill really at the stage of being submitted for parliamentary consideration? So much of it needs further work and further consultation that I really do wonder whether it should be in this House at all at this stage. This is something that we may have to return to.
A specified objective to permit disclosure must meet conditions set out in subsections (6) and (10) of the clause, but they are so all-encompassing that it is difficult to see anything that the public sector does that is not covered by the clause. The published codes give examples of objectives that would fall foul of these criteria, including those that are punitive, and it is useful to see those examples. But it is a real concern that such a clarification of the power is not in the Bill. Why does the Bill not explicitly contain or exclude a punitive objective? What are we avoiding here?
The codes also give examples of objectives that are too general rather than too specific, and it would help if the Minister could say exactly where that line could be drawn. Not only are the objectives not limited in the Bill but the bodies that can share or receive data are not particularly limited either. Subsection (3) states:
“A person specified in regulations under subsection (2) must be … (a) a public authority, or (b) a person providing services to a public authority”.
This is another area that gives people a lot of concern.
In the Government’s original consultation on the Bill, they stated their intention to proceed with proposals to enable non-public sector organisations that fulfil a public function on behalf of a public authority to be in scope of the powers. In that consultation, they said:
“We will strictly define the circumstances and purposes under which data-sharing will be allowed, together with controls to protect the data within the Code of Practice. We will set out in the Code of Practice the need to identify any conflicts of interest that a non-public authority may have and factor that information in the decision-making”.
I read the code of practice. Paragraph 71 refers to this and mentions non-public sector organisations. It says that,
“an assessment should be made of any conflicts of interest that the non-public authority may have”—
but it does not give any examples of what those conflicts of interest might look like. I hope that in his response the Minister will be able to give more examples of what they might look like. We will come back to this issue in our consideration of other groups of amendments to this section.
The code also states that data-sharing agreements should,
“identify whether there are any unintended risks involved with disclosing data”,
to an organisation. In the Commons, my honourable friend Louise Haigh—I congratulate her on this work—raised the behaviour of Concentrix, which was mentioned again on the radio today. It was contracted by HMRC to investigate tax credits and fraud. But the code of practice does not list any examples of risks or set out how specified persons might go about ascertaining them. We heard on the radio today that that contract and the mismanagement of the data has caused huge distress to tens of thousands of people, and that it is ongoing.
The code also states:
“Non-public authorities can only participate in a data sharing arrangement once their sponsoring public authority has assessed their systems and procedures to be appropriate for secure handling data”.
It does not give any sense of what conditions they will be measured against and how officials should assess them. I hope it is not going to be on the same basis that the HMRC gave the contract to Concentrix. It is that that we need to know about. This draft code—and I will keep coming back to it—is in an extremely draft form and needs substantially more work done on it. I hope that the noble Lord will assure us that these codes will be revised and I hope that, within the revisions, he will acknowledge that substantial improvements will be made.
Baroness Janke
My Lords, I, too, wish to speak to this group of amendments, many of which are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, we on this Bench support the sharing of information. I have been a local councillor for many years and I certainly see the benefits of being able to share information. It would make people’s lives a great deal easier and enable them to access benefits and exemptions that they have not easily been able to in the past. We feel, however, that far more privacy safeguards are needed in this part of the Bill. The amendments introduce some tightening of the terms of the Bill, but more clarity is needed, with a number of principles involved in this.
Many of the people to whom the information relates are among the most vulnerable: they are people who are unemployed or on benefits, perhaps with children involved, and not necessarily in a position to understand what is happening if there is no transparency and some idea of consent in sharing the information. It is also important that we are assured that data being shared are minimised—that as little as possible is shared. There needs to be a clear justification for sharing data; the purposes must be clear and the definitions governing that must be tight.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned Concentrix. We know that there have been other issues with the Government’s breaches of information and that government departments are not always as well equipped to deal with sensitive information as they might be. It is therefore all the more important that we have much more tightly defined terms in the Bill. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said about our not having those before us at the moment and about what is needed to reassure us on that if we cannot see them at the moment. The codes of practice are dealt with in the next group of amendments, and we will want to say a few words about them then, but there needs to be much more rigour and clarity, and many more conditions and safeguards to protect vulnerable people of the future, not just from wilful misuse of their personal information but from errors that could pursue them throughout their lives. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us about this and I look forward to his comments.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 85, which is linked with this group. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his introduction. I believe in data sharing; I declare that straightaway. However, it needs to be well managed, because, as the noble Baroness has just stressed, we do not want information to be used in a way that is, unfortunately, not fair to some of the very vulnerable families of which she has spoken.
Although the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, deals with Clause 30, my amendment relates to Clause 33. I have asked that Clause 33(2)(c) to (f) be deleted, if only to give me an opportunity to express my concerns about this aspect of the Bill. In these two clauses, we are talking about information being disclosed by gas and electricity companies and information being given by other authorities to gas and electricity suppliers. That is why one or two of my thoughts went searching as to why they would be in this group.
My amendment is very much a probing amendment and seeks clarification. The Explanatory Notes state that these paragraphs are included to enable personal information to be used in,
“criminal investigations, civil or criminal legal proceedings or the prevention or detection of crime or the prevention of antisocial behaviour”.
My amendment refers particularly to subsection 2(c) in that group. Will the Minister explain in what way the gas and electricity suppliers will be involved in such activities other than reporting persons and their behaviour to the police? I do not quite see what responsibility the gas or electricity suppliers have with this part of the Bill in that context.
I also confess considerable alarm at the prospect of power suppliers having access to very personal and private information to enable them, as I understand it, to investigate, detect, prevent or prosecute anything outside the realm of their normal expertise. Surely, their original expertise was the supply, maintenance and, where necessary, repair of power lines and pipes, but in this part of the Bill it seems to go very wide. I shall speak to other amendments later, so I will not go on at great length at this stage, but this part of the Bill raises questions for me. I can see some of the advantages of data sharing, but how do we define antisocial behaviour and what does that have to do with gas and electricity boards? I may be wrong; I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I come rather late to the table with the Bill, but fresh, if that is the term, from the Investigatory Powers Act, as does the noble and learned Lord. Like me, he may have reflected on the fact that one of our basic documents in debating the Investigatory Powers Act was called by David Anderson A Question of Trust; the issue of trust is equally relevant to the provisions in the Bill. Like other noble Lords, I see the value of sharing information but—and for me it is a big “but”—with constraints, limits, conditions, checks. I would say balances but I do not think they always do the job. It would be too easy in this area to let convenience obscure other considerations. I have concerns about fundamental issues and I have difficulty, as I suspect do other noble Lords, knowing quite what to raise where, but my most fundamental concern is about respect for privacy. The use of bulk data, which we will come to, is bound to raise this.
I share concerns which have been raised about providers—not the public authorities and public services themselves, but the providers. Maybe we have to be realistic, as our public services are now provided so much through commissioning and procurement but, as I read the Bill, the regulations will not be required to list specific providers. I may be wrong about that. If providers have to be included, it would be appropriate for the public to be reassured, for instance, that the public authority in question maintains a register of its providers and publishes it. Maybe, also, all records of information held under these provisions should be destroyed at the termination of the provider’s contract.
The purposes set out here include well-being, which includes the contribution to society. I am not going to let this pass without saying that that risks being read, and I read it, as very paternalistic. I cannot see how it properly covers anything that is not covered by the other well-being provisions. Others have suggested that Clause 30 might lead to profiling. There is certainly a concern over health information, which we will come to separately. I also find it quite hard to think: if you are not contributing to society, are you not deserving of or entitled to public services? I think it is a very unfortunate term to use in legislation.
I share the concerns about Clause 33. At the very least, to share personal information to prevent anti-social behaviour which is not a crime—we know it is not a crime; you do not even need to go to the legislation about anti-social behaviour to know that, because it is referred to separately from crime—is going several steps too far. I start—I am not suggesting that others do not—from the premise that personal information should be kept confidential unless there is good reason not to do so, and if it is not confidential it needs to be treated with the greatest care and sensitivity. Respect for private life is one of our basic values. The Minister would be able to quote Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—as I will do—without reading it. It says that there are “necessary”—I stress that word—exceptions in the interests of national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. I support the amendments—I think they are in this group—that would import the term “necessary”.
Article 8 refers to disorder and crime, but—I will not be surprised if the Minister quotes some case law at me on the definition of “disorder”—I would have thought that in this context it must refer to something a good deal more serious than what may fall within “anti-social behaviour”.
The Investigatory Powers Act includes the much-welcomed and much-discussed “privacy” clause; during the debate on that we considered the requirements of both necessity and proportionality. The Act also refers specifically to the Human Rights Act and to crime as a consideration when it is a serious crime, and it refers to using “less intrusive means”. These points are all relevant to this debate.
For my part, this amounts to support for all the amendments in the group and a concern to persuade the Government to look at the issues through the lens of rights to privacy as well as efficiency. Most citizens accept—indeed, expect—that in a digital age government departments will share information, but with narrower purposes and stricter checks than the Bill offers.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged to noble Lords for their observations on this group.
The powers in Chapter 1 of Part 5 will support the delivery of better services to achieve specified objectives, such as providing assistance to those suffering, for example, from fuel poverty. Your Lordships would all appear to be agreed on the need for effective data-sharing, but when we talk about that we must mean data-sharing that is secure and commands the trust of the general public—that is sufficiently ring-fenced to give confidence in the whole process. No one would take issue with that.
In that context I make this observation at the outset. It applies not only to this group of amendments but to further groups that we will come to this afternoon and perhaps much later this evening. We have to look at the provisions in this Bill in the context, first, of the Data Protection Act 1998, because the provisions of that Act apply in the context of this Bill. Therefore, as we look at the Bill, we must remember the protections that already exist in law with regard to data in this context. First, processing of personal data must always be fair and lawful. Secondly, data cannot be processed in a way that is incompatible with the purpose for which they were gathered. Thirdly, personal data must be,
“adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed”.
The personal data should be “accurate”, so a subject may be in a position to demand that they should be corrected.
Furthermore, on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, personal data can be kept no longer than is necessary for a particular objective. Where, therefore, they have been employed for a particular objective—or a party has received them for a particular purpose—and a need to keep the data for that purpose can no longer be displayed, they cannot be retained.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord address—in a later group, if not this one—why the terminology in the Bill is “personal information” rather than “personal data”, which might have made the marrying-up of the legislation a bit easier?
Lord Keen of Elie
Indeed I can. The reason is that in the present context, personal information extends to bodies corporate and other personalities that are not otherwise covered by the first definition. I will elaborate upon that later but that is why there is a distinction between the two terms. We can see that the two terms substantially overlap but it is only because of that technical distinction that they are employed in this way. I hope that that satisfies the inquiry from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The Data Protection Act not only circumscribes the use of data in very particular ways—for example, personal data must be processed in accordance with the data subject’s rights under the Act and be held securely to guard against unlawful or unauthorised processing, which addresses a point that many of your Lordships referred—but provides remedies in the event that those obligations are not adhered to. Generally speaking, that involves a complaint to the Information Commissioner.
Of course there have been lapses in data control. We are well aware of many of them. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, alluded to Concentrix, where there clearly appeared to have been lapses such that the Revenue terminated its contract without further notice in November of last year. We recognise that there are risks associated with data and data-sharing. That is why we emphasise the need to look at the provisions in the Bill not only alone but in the context of the Data Protection Act.
Lord Collins of Highbury
There were obviously risks associated with the contract for Concentrix and the fall-out from that contract is certainly ongoing, because of the people who have suffered hardship. The Government will undoubtedly have to investigate even more because at the moment, we are dealing only with the people who have appealed. Can the Minister tell us exactly why the existing provisions for a risk assessment did not stop this contract from going sour?
Lord Keen of Elie
As the noble Lord is aware, Concentrix was not the only incident in which there were data breaches. They have happened not only in the context of parties operating with government but also entirely in the private sector. So far as I am aware, no one has made a claim for infallibility where data protection is concerned. Albeit that we aspire to the highest standards in data protection, we are not making claims of infallibility.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also referred in the present context to the GDPR, which will come into effect as a European regulation in May 2018. I reiterate that the provisions in Part 5 of the Bill are compatible with the GDPR. The noble Lord appeared to take some issue with that term, but let me be clear: the provisions of Part 5 are drafted in such a way as to be compatible with the regulation. When the regulation comes into direct force, we will look at the provisions of the Act and the codes of practice to ensure that they are consistent with it. That is the way in which these things are done. The regulation is not yet in force and will be applied to the existing statutory structure from May 2018. I reassure him that it has always been intended that Part 5 of the Bill should be compatible with the regulation, for very obvious reasons.
Then there is the matter of the draft codes of practice. At this stage they are, of course, a draft. Those drafts have incorporated comments and advice from practitioners right across the public sector, from the Information Commissioner and from the devolved Administrations, so they have brought in that body of knowledge at this stage.
Baroness Byford
I specifically asked why the responsibility has been placed on gas and electricity suppliers to have regard to some of the things stated in the Bill, and I would be grateful for an answer. I do not mind if the answer is not given now, but if that could be clarified I would be grateful.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am perfectly prepared to write to my noble friend to clarify that point, and I will place a copy of any letter in the Library.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister for his response. One of the things that we will encounter as we go through this section is the fact that the 1998 Act has some fundamental principles but that we have the Bill before us because there is a need for greater clarity. The world has changed in the past 20 years, certainly in the way that we handle and interrogate data. We no longer simply say that this set of data will go to that person and so on. We do not necessarily even have to share the whole dataset. The point is about how one might interrogate data. It is a very different world. I am not suggesting for one moment that errors do not occur, accidents do not happen and mistakes cannot happen, but in the modern world we conduct risk assessments to understand how we can minimise those things. That is what I want properly addressed when we come back to some of these issues.
The Minister says that the Government will consider the report of your Lordships’ committee. If there are to be further amendments, I hope that we will have time to consider them and even to put down our own amendments to ensure that the principles about which we are concerned will be able to be addressed. With those comments and, if you like, fair warnings, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Informal European Council
(7 years, 10 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, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows.
“Mr Speaker, before I turn to the European Council, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen as she marks her Sapphire Jubilee today. It is testament to Her Majesty’s selfless devotion to the nation that she is marking becoming our first Monarch to reign for 65 years not with any special celebration but, instead, by getting on with the job to which she has dedicated her life. On behalf of the whole country, I am proud to offer Her Majesty our humble thanks for a lifetime of extraordinary service. Long may she continue to reign over us all.
Turning to last week’s informal European Council in Malta, Britain is leaving the European Union but we are not leaving Europe—and a global Britain that stands tall in the world will be a Britain that remains a good friend and ally to all our European partners. So at this summit, we showed how Britain will continue to play a leading role in Europe long after we have left the EU, in particular through our contribution to the challenge of managing mass migration, through our special relationship with America and through the new and equal partnership that we want to build between the EU and an independent, self-governing, global Britain. Let me take each point in turn.
First, on migration, the discussion focused in particular on the route from Libya across the central Mediterranean. As I have argued, we need a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach, and that is exactly what this Council agreed. This includes working hard in support of an inclusive political settlement to stabilise Libya, which will help not only to tackle migration flows but to counter terrorism. It means working to reduce the pull factors that encourage people to risk their lives, building the capacity of the Libyans to return migrants to their own shores, treat them with dignity and help them return home. It means looking beyond Libya and moving further upstream, including by urgently implementing the EU’s external investment plan to help create more opportunities in migrants’ home countries and by helping genuine refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. It also means better distinguishing between economic migrants and refugees, swiftly returning those who have no right to remain and thereby sending out a deterrence message to others thinking of embarking on perilous journeys. The Council agreed action in all of these areas.
Britain is already playing a leading role in the region and at this summit I announced further steps, including additional support for the Libyan coastguard and more than £30 million of new aid for the most vulnerable refugees across Greece, the Balkans, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Sudan and Libya. Britain is also setting up an £8 million special protection fund to keep men, women and children in the Mediterranean region safe from trafficking, sexual violence and labour exploitation as part of our commitment to tackle modern slavery. The Council agreed with my call that we should do everything possible to deter this horrific crime, including by introducing tough penalties for those who trade in human misery and by working together to secure the necessary evidence for prosecutions that can put these criminals behind bars where they belong.
Turning to America, I opened a discussion on engaging the new Administration, and I was able to relay the conversation I had with President Trump at the White House about the important history of co-operation between the United States and the countries of Europe. In particular, I confirmed that the President had declared his 100% commitment to NATO as the cornerstone of our security in the West. But I also made clear that every country needs to share the burden and play its full part, meeting the NATO target of spending 2% on defence. It is only by investing properly in our defence that we can ensure we are properly equipped to keep our people safe.
I was also able to relay my discussions with President Trump on the importance of maintaining the sanctions regime on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine. I very much welcome the strong words last week from the new US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, in confirming America’s continued support for these sanctions.
Of course, there are some areas where we disagree with the approach of the new Administration, and we should be clear about those disagreements and about the values that underpin our response to the global challenges that we face. I also argued at the Council, however, that we should engage patiently and constructively with America as a friend and ally—an ally that has helped guarantee the longest period of peace that Europe has ever known. We should be clear that the alternative of division and confrontation would only embolden those who would do us harm, wherever they may be.
Finally, on Brexit, European leaders welcomed the clarity of the objectives that we have set out for the negotiation ahead. They warmly welcomed our ambition to build a new partnership between Britain and the European Union that is in the interests of both sides. They also welcomed the recognition that we in Britain want to see a strong and successful European Union, because that is in our interests and the interests of the whole world.
On the issue of acquired rights, the general view was that we should reach an agreement which applied equally to the other 27 member states and the UK, which is why we think a unilateral decision from the UK is not the right way forward. As I have said before, however, EU citizens living in the UK make a vital contribution to our economy and our society, and without them we would be poorer and our public services weaker. So we will make securing the reciprocal agreement that will guarantee their status a priority as soon as the negotiations begin, and I want to see this agreed as soon as possible, because that is in everyone’s interests.
Our European partners now want to get on with the negotiations. So do I, and so does this House, which last week voted by a majority of 384 in support of the Government triggering Article 50. There are, of course, further stages for the Bill in Committee and in the other place, and it is right that this process should be completed properly, but the message is clear to all: this House has spoken, and now is not the time to obstruct the democratically expressed wishes of the British people. It is time to get on with leaving the European Union and building an independent, self-governing, global Britain. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement today and concur with her congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on her 65th anniversary as the nation’s monarch. I hope that Her Majesty is able to commemorate the event in some way, but I suspect for her that this is an anniversary also tinged with sadness at the loss of her father. He endeared himself to the nation, and his early death was a terrible shock. She had not expected to be Queen at such a young age. That was at a time of great change in the world, which is also the case today. It was also a time when, following the war, there were many refugees across Europe. Here we are, 65 years later, and with yet another European summit discussing how to prevent further refugees and mass migration, this time from the Middle East and north Africa.
The Statement talks about the pull factors that lead to people seeking safety and a better life away from their homes. We should always keep in our mind the desperation that leads people to risk their lives and those of their families in leaving their homeland, often leaving behind all their possessions, other family and friends, and often paying large amounts to criminals. In looking at the push factors too, can I ask the noble Baroness about the EU external investment plan? The Statement refers to creating more opportunities in migrants’ home countries. Can she expand on that? I am not sure of the details at all. Is it limited to economy and employment opportunities or is it more linked to security? It would be helpful to have some more information and also to know how it is going to be implemented and monitored, and how success will be measured.
Can the noble Baroness say more about the conversations the Prime Minister had with President Trump when she was at the White House? She said she was able to relay the conversations that she had with the President on the relationship between the USA and European countries. I think we are all quite interested in that conversation and would be interested to hear more. The Prime Minister’s assurance that the President had declared his 100% support from NATO was particularly welcome, but we have not yet heard it from his own lips—or, perhaps more importantly, from his own Twitter account. What was the response from her European colleagues on this point?
The Minister had a number of side meetings but apparently not with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as they were able to discuss their issues informally in the margins outside the arranged meetings. Those all-important private discussions can be very productive in building relationships and being frank and open with European leaders, so it makes the situation even more difficult that the Prime Minister then had to pack her bags and leave while the remaining 27 countries further considered other issues relating to the EU that we cannot be part of. What plans do the Government have to ensure that we do not lose out by not being at the table, not just for the formal parts of the meeting where they are discussing the EU post Brexit but for those informal discussions that lead to trust and develop the relationships that will be all-important as we move forward?
Malta has been a close and important ally of the UK over many years; it is the only instance of an entire country being awarded the George Cross. Obviously it is important that we maintain what we would call that “special relationship”, so what are the Government’s plans to ensure that that relationship continues post Brexit? The Prime Minister met the Prime Minister of Spain. Did she discuss Gibraltar, and had she met the Gibraltarian First Minister before she was able to raise any such issues with the Spanish Prime Minister?
On the issue of EU citizens, I do not think today’s Statement gives anything like the reassurance they require so that they can continue with their lives, their jobs, their homes and their families in this country. It is in the Prime Minister’s gift to say so. Even UKIP said so on television yesterday, so why the Prime Minister cannot make such a commitment I have no idea. It is about time we heard something stronger from the Prime Minister on this issue.
The section in the Statement regarding Brexit says the European leaders,
“warmly welcomed our ambition to build a new partnership between Britain and the European Union that is in the interests of both sides. They also welcomed the recognition that we in Britain want to see a strong and successful European Union”.
I hope that is not an overoptimistic view. We have some tough negotiations ahead in which we have to get the best possible deal that we can in the interests of the UK and UK citizens. If there is any complacency at all that these negotiations are going to be easy, I do not see how we can get the best deal. I hope the noble Baroness can assure me that this is not an overoptimistic view and that there is awareness of the difficult discussions and negotiations that are going to take place.
On the last part of the Statement, I am sure I am not the only one in your Lordships’ House who is getting tired of the Government going on and on about not “obstructing”—I think that is the latest phrase—“the democratically expressed wishes of the British people”. I do not know how many times this has to be said about blocking, obstructing, wrecking or whatever is the latest word the Prime Minister has found in her thesaurus. I say to the noble Baroness that asking questions and making suggestions for amendment is not blocking, obstructing or wrecking; it is called parliamentary democracy. That should be welcomed by the Government because that is the way in which we will get the best deal, not just by accusing people who ask questions of blocking. I do not know why those who are in charge of the negotiations are so frightened of questions, because time and again we hear that only by questioning and scrutiny do we get better legislation, and that is all this House would ever seek to do.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House by congratulating the Queen on her Sapphire Jubilee—a truly remarkable achievement.
With every passing Council meeting, we see the influence of Great Britain and the Prime Minister diminishing. In October, she made a five-minute speech at 1 o’clock in the morning. In December she was pictured standing alone, desperately looking for someone to talk to. This time, she was rebuffed as she offered to act as a bridge between Europe and the USA. One does not need to be an engineer to know that, to be sustainable, a bridge needs firm foundations on both sides of the stream. At the moment the UK is demolishing one set of foundations—namely, those on the European side of the stream—and therefore is it surprising that countries within the EU, from the largest to the smallest, have treated with almost total disdain the Prime Minister’s suggestion that, in our new semi-detached state, we might act as a bridge?
One of the more useful parts of the Prime Minister’s visit to Malta might have been the formal meeting on her agenda with the Chancellor of Germany. Could the Leader of the House explain why that formal meeting was cancelled? Admittedly, the two of them did chat briefly while walking down the street, but frankly that does not constitute a sensible degree of conversation with the most important of our EU partners. Will the noble Baroness say what plans the Prime Minister has to have a substantive discussion with Angela Merkel, to make good the fact that they had very little time, while walking down the street on a sunny day in Valletta, to talk about anything of great substance? This was an extremely short visit by the Prime Minister. As at previous Council meetings, she had to leave after the pudding and probably even before the coffee was served. Not surprisingly, perhaps, she was not present as the other leaders of the EU discussed how they might make preparations for the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. Will the Leader of the House say whether she expects the UK Government to be represented at those celebrations when they eventually take place and, if so, by whom?
The most substantive part of the discussions in Malta were about migration from Libya. We welcome the fact that it was possible to make progress, and the Prime Minister takes great satisfaction from the fact that she played a significant part in those negotiations. May I echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about how the Government expect to play such an important, useful part in future, when they are not even at the table at which those discussions take place? Of course, the vast bulk of the refugees from Libya is going to Italy. We have discussed before in your Lordships’ House the extent to which her Majesty’s Government are making good their commitment under the Dubs amendment to bring child refugees who find themselves in Italy to the UK. I apologise if I have got the figure wrong, but I think that when it was last discussed the Government said one person from the Home Office had been sent to Italy to help in that process. Will the noble Baroness confirm whether that is indeed the case, whether she thinks that to be an adequate response to this humanitarian crisis, and how many children have come to the UK from Italy under the provisions of the Dubs amendment?
Finally, on Brexit and the vexed question of acquired rights, many people in the country just do not understand the Government’s attitude in denying EU citizens living in the UK the knowledge that they will be able to remain post Brexit. The Government seem to be unaware of the crisis that is developing as a result of this policy. Those who saw the BBC news in London will have seen what is happening to the recruitment of EU staff in hospitals in London. Again, I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that the figure given of the number of nurses coming to London hospitals has, since last year, fallen by approximately 90% That is an extraordinarily worrying phenomenon, given that we are far from meeting the staffing requirements that the NHS has set itself, and it is by no means clear where else the Government expect those nursing numbers to be made up.
One reason why people are unwilling to come at the moment is that they feel that the attitude of the Government in respect of existing EU citizens gives them no confidence that they will be welcome. Another is that they have no sense of how the rules are going to operate in future. So while the Government have many things about which they do not want to give a detailed account, could they say how they intend to approach the question of migration from the EU of people whose skills we need—whether they are the brightest and the best, at a very high skill level, whether they are medium-skilled people or whether they are the kind of people whom we will require in future to enable our agricultural, horticultural and hospitality sectors to survive and prosper?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am sorry to start on a discordant note, but I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord’s assessment of the Prime Minister’s role at the summit. In fact, it showed that, once again, while we are a member of the EU, we will continue to play a full part. The Prime Minister opened the discussion on migration and was specifically asked to lead the discussion over lunch about the new American Administration. That is quite clear evidence that, while we remain in the EU, we will continue to play a central role in discussions. As I have said, we will also continue to make sure that we have a strong relationship with our EU partners as we go forward.
On some of the other comments and questions raised, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about the EU’s external investment plan, which, as she will know, was agreed in late 2016. It is now being considered by the European Parliament, and we are eager for it to be implemented as soon as possible. It is focused on creating economic opportunities in countries of origin and transit to reduce push factors.
The noble Baroness also asked about the conversations that the Prime Minister had about NATO. While I cannot speak for the President’s Twitter account, I can say that the Prime Minister was quite clear that she did get confirmation from President Trump that he is 100% behind NATO, and this was very much welcomed by our European partners.
On the Prime Minister’s discussions with Chancellor Angela Merkel, part of the reason that they were able to have full and frank discussions during the walkabout was that the initial meeting on migration finished quite early, so they had more time. As two women who get to the point, it is quite a good sign of the positive relationship that they have that they can discuss what they need to in a timely fashion.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about our relationship with the EU. Once again, I can say that we are absolutely committed to maintaining good relations with our EU partners; we want the best deal for Britain and the UK, and we believe that it is only right that the 27 continue to discuss their approach to our negotiations. We want to make sure that both sides have the most fruitful negotiations possible, and they need to prepare for those just as we are preparing for them in this country.
On the status of EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living abroad, as we have said, we are very keen to try to come to an agreement as soon as we can. In conversations with EU leaders, they have made it very clear that they want to discuss the status of nationals as part of the negotiations. There is good will on all sides, and I believe that the readout of some of the conversations that the Prime Minister had with the Prime Minister of Spain shows that. That is the position that the EU leaders have taken and one that we have to respect, but it is certainly a priority, and the Prime Minister once again showed that by raising it with her counterparts.
I assure the noble Baroness that we are all very clear that discussions and negotiations will be difficult and challenging, but we believe and are confident that it is in in the interests of the EU and of this country to come to the best deal that we can. We are starting from a strong position of wanting the best for the EU and for this country, so we are confident that we will get to a deal that we can all be happy with.
In terms of parliamentary scrutiny, the noble Baroness and all noble Lords will be aware that there has not been a sitting day since the referendum when Parliament has not discussed, debated or scrutinised Brexit in one form or another. There have been 70 parliamentary debates already on Brexit, as well as over 30 Select Committee inquiries. We understand and want the scrutiny of Parliament and Parliament’s involvement in helping with these negotiations. As I have said, I think that we are making good progress on that already.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, before we proceed to Back-Bench questions, I invite your Lordships to observe the normal rotational pattern of posing questions to try and ensure fairness of opportunity across the Chamber.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement and, in particular, the congratulations that were offered to Her Majesty. I also welcome the very robust response that the noble Baroness gave. Does she agree that there seems to be a delusion in the other place, and maybe even in parts of this House, that ahead lies some neatly tied-up and bundled bespoke deal that will comprehensively cover all of our problems? Would it not be better to explain at this stage that we will see a whole range of sector-specific trade deals? For example, there will be deals on defence—such as those the Prime Minister addressed in Malta—on migrants and refugees, and on crime. These are all practical arrangements, which will be required in order to build a new relationship with the European Union and other independent states. Would it not be better to explain this than for us to believe that a marvellous, complete deal will emerge after the negotiations? It will not.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend for that question. I think that we are all under no illusion about the breadth and depth of the relationship we have with Europe at the moment and the scope of the negotiations. Some areas will no doubt be easier to come to an agreed position on than others, but we are determined to go in with a positive and optimistic frame of mind and to achieve a deal that works best for this country. We believe that our European partners will want to work with us to ensure that we create a new and positive partnership for both sides.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, did the Prime Minister, in her introduction to the European Council on the relationship with the United States, or in her walk with the Chancellor of Germany around the streets of Valletta, congratulate Mrs Merkel on her telephone call with President Trump, in which Mrs Merkel very clearly said that we all have to respect our international obligations to refugees? Did the Prime Minister not feel a certain sense of shame that, in her own encounter with President Trump in the White House, she did not have the courage to make that point when he told her of his impending executive orders?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Prime Minister has been very clear that we believe the ban is divisive and wrong and that it is absolutely not a policy that we would pursue. She had a good conversation with Chancellor Merkel which covered a whole range of issues.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, when the Prime Minister introduced her White Paper and Lancaster House speech—the Statement said that it was welcomed, particularly the reference to a new partnership, which I think is a very good label to give it—did her colleagues indicate whether they would start negotiating on the new partnership as soon as Article 50 is triggered, or do they still hold to the Commission’s point of view that the negotiations on divorce have to come first and that the other negotiation can only be consecutive? Secondly, did she find that all 27 of her colleagues agreed with the view held by herself and the Home Secretary that President Trump’s travel ban is not only wrong but also extraordinarily likely to lead to increased radicalisation in Muslim countries, which can only put European countries at greater risk?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said in the Statement, the Prime Minister has said that our European partners want to get on with the negotiations. We all want to move on so that we can come to a good deal. As I have also said, we have been very clear that we believe the ban is divisive and wrong.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, whom I thank for repeating the Statement, tell us what words President Trump used when he gave his commitment to NATO? My understanding is that the Prime Minister said that he gave a 100% commitment to NATO, but I have not seen the words used by President Trump. It is rather similar to the occasion when Mr Gove asked the President whether Britain would be high up in the queue for a trade agreement. I do not think that I saw the words used. This is more than quibbling, because we need to know what the real commitment and intentions of the President of the United States are. Secondly, will the noble Baroness explain why it is a sequitur that, because we want an agreement with the 27 on acquired rights, the UK cannot therefore make a unilateral start on that? I suggest that that is just another pretext. If the UK showed good will by giving a unilateral guarantee, which morally and economically is the right thing to do, that would be the basis for an agreement. As the noble Baroness well knows, there is cross-party support in this House and way beyond it for the Government to do that rather than keep finding new excuses.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I was not in the room when President Trump and the Prime Minister had a conversation, I cannot give the noble Baroness a verbatim account. However, I can tell her what the Prime Minister has told us: that President Trump confirmed that he was 100% behind NATO. I believe that he nodded and agreed with that when he was standing at his podium. However, I am afraid that I was not there any more than she was.
As I have said, I cannot say any more about the situation regarding the status of EU nationals. We have been very clear that this is a priority for us and that we want to come to an agreement as quickly as possible. However, we also have to respect the position of our EU partners. We will try to address this issue very quickly. The Prime Minister has been extremely clear, as have I and all my Front Bench colleagues, that we hugely value the contribution of EU citizens here, and that this is a priority for us.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, further to that point, the Statement says that the general view was that mutual recognition should take place. Which of the 27 member states do not agree with that? Is it not rather depressing that the Prime Minister has already made weeks ago an offer of mutual recognition for their 3.5 million-plus people living here and our 1.2 million people living there? Is it not very disappointing that they have not already agreed that? On the question of NATO, could the noble Baroness tell us which of the EU nations are actually refusing to pay their 2% of GDP? Is not President Trump quite right in insisting that they should?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, we believe there is good will on all sides to look at the status of both EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in member states. We consider this a priority. We believe it is something on which we will have very constructive early discussions with our European partners. We have also said in relation to NATO—the Prime Minister discussed this over lunch—that we want to encourage other European leaders to deliver on their commitment to spend 2% of their GDP on defence. We believe that a number of European countries are actively considering that and will be looking to do it in due course.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is it correct, as reported in the newspapers, that the Spanish leader has indicated that he would be very happy for British residents in Spain to enjoy the same rights as they do at present? If that is the case, is it not wrong to criticise the Prime Minister for arguing that we should get on with moving Article 50 so that there is an opportunity for those negotiations to continue? Could not the criticism that the Prime Minister should take a moral lead apply equally to the Spanish Prime Minister or to any of the other European leaders? The problem here is Europe refusing to guarantee the position of British citizens in Europe. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is surely right to think about them as well as EU citizens living here.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Certainly, the fact that the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Spain had constructive discussions is very positive. As I said, it shows that there is good will on all sides to try to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, is it not striking how often government Ministers say how very, terribly, extremely influential the Prime Minister is? I do not recall that ever being said about Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or, for that matter, Margaret Thatcher. They always were very influential.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am telling you she is influential because you are asking me.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, is not the point of a negotiation or a package of negotiations of the sort we will see with withdrawal that we will start the negotiations but nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed? Is not the danger of looking at reciprocal agreements on the rights of EU and UK citizens that nothing will be decided until the day we leave the European Union, which will be far too late to give certainty to EU nationals currently resident in the United Kingdom—something that we could do unilaterally?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I can only repeat what I have said in answer to all the questions on this, which is that we are looking for an early agreement.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement repeated to the House this afternoon, especially the assurance given by the Prime Minister that President Trump will be 100% behind NATO. As almost one-quarter of the European Union countries refuse to join NATO, when can we have a 100% guarantee that the nations of the European Union will also support NATO?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We are very clear that NATO is the cornerstone of the UK’s defence and security, and our commitment remains as strong as ever. As I said, during the lunch the Prime Minister discussed our commitment and that of our European partners to NATO. I think that there was general agreement on the importance of the organisation going forward.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, last week in public session, evidence was given to one of this House’s sub-committees of the European Union Select Committee to the effect that, going forward, agricultural industries will require between 90,000 and 100,000 workers annually on a temporary, not a permanent, basis—people who come for seasonal work and then return to their countries. Therefore, it is not just the matter of the people in our universities, schools and hospitals or the City of London that needs to be resolved; this particular question, affecting, as it will, the whole future of much of the agricultural and horticultural industries in this country, also needs an urgent resolution.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is right that we need to address the issues and needs of all sectors. That is why the work of the House’s EU committees is so important. I look forward to reading the report and am sure that excellent suggestions will be put forward about the kinds of issues that we need to think about during our negotiations.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement. Does she find it strange that many Members of this House and another place are threatening to vote against the imposition of Article 50 after voting in favour of holding the referendum in the first place? Does she recall any of them saying during the referendum campaign that, however people voted, they would ignore the result of the referendum, whatever it was?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My noble friend is right. The Article 50 Bill is indeed a straightforward Bill: it is not about whether the UK should leave the European Union—that decision has been made—but about triggering Article 50.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I have never understood why Gibraltarians would not wish to have feet in both camps, although that is clearly a matter for them. The Prime Minister was absolutely right to draw attention to the economic well-being of LEDCs—less economically developed countries. Have the Government decided which competent UK authority will be responsible for preferential access negotiations post Brexit?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that question and will have to write to the noble Viscount.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Does she agree with me about the importance of EU agencies such as FRONTEX, which protects our external borders along with those of other member states, the European Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Medicines Agency? Does she believe in the effectiveness of these organisations and their benefit to the United Kingdom? If so, why are we putting that at risk by going for a hard Brexit?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is absolutely right. As we discussed in Questions today, many European bodies play an extremely important role and are highly valued in terms of the standards, co-operation and everything else that we get out of them. All of these will be up for negotiation, and we will obviously want to maintain very close relationships with those organisations that add huge value. However, this will also give us an opportunity to look at how we can perhaps improve standards and quality in this country, because we will be free to do that.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, when considering the quality of the commitment of the President to NATO, are we entitled to look at his continuing favourable ambiguity towards Mr Putin, whose avowed intention is the undermining of NATO?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The Prime Minister has been extremely clear to both President Putin and, indeed, the President of the United States that our relationship with Russia cannot be business as usual, as a result of its actions in Ukraine and Syria. Where there are issues that we disagree on, we should hold Russia to account, but we also need to have hard-headed engagement where we can move forward. As the Prime Minister was very clear and said to the President, we need to engage but beware.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, can I clear up a small point? I notice in the printed version of the Statement—or the Statement from the other place—that in “Global Britain” the “Global” is in upper case. Is this a renaming of Great Britain, a typo or more of a marketing slogan like “Cool Britannia”? On a more substantial point, I am glad that the EU recognises that Libya is the place in which refugees and migrants should be concentrated so they can be properly assessed and helped as necessary. The crucial thing in my plan, which I produced in 2015 and have subsequently mentioned, is that there should be a military presence of NATO to protect these people and make sure that they are not ill-treated in Libya. I hope that the military presence would be United Nations sanctioned, with NATO in blue helmets, through a Security Council resolution because, without that, the ideas that the EU is floating about Libya could end in disaster.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I assure my noble friend that the UK is working with the international community to support the Government of National Accord’s efforts to deliver security and stability for the Libyan people and to tackle the flow of illegal migrants through Libya. We have allocated more than £10.5 million this year for assistance to Libya and technical support to its Government.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that the Statement and the noble Baroness herself stressed the need for a positive partnership with the European Union. Is the noble Baroness not concerned then that the President of the United States is not well disposed towards the European Union? Indeed, he wants it to fall apart—likewise his nominee for ambassador to the European Union. Does that not give the noble Baroness cause for concern?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
One of the things discussed over the lunch was exactly how we can ensure that relationships between the United States and the European Union remain as strong as ever. We are very keen to make sure that that is well understood and that the EU along with us plays an important international role as we always have done.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, on the sapphire jubilee of the Queen, can I say how pleased I am that we are in the process having a realm for her and her successors to rule over? My second point is in relation to the sort of hate campaign going on against the United States simply and solely because it has, for four years, elected a different sort of President—if I can put it that way. Did the Prime Minister remind Europe that it is protected against people who wish it ill by the enormous economic and military power of the United States through NATO?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said in the Statement, the Prime Minister discussed with our European partners the need to engage patiently and constructively with America as a friend and ally—an ally that has helped guarantee the longest period of peace Europe has known. Certainly we are and remain close partners on trade and security of defence. Also, as friends, where we have differences we need to be honest about them.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
Can I follow up the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and repeat a question that I have put to the Government many times since 1999? Does it matter if the European Union falls apart and the democratic nations of Europe go back to their own currencies, freely trading together and supporting NATO together and so on? What is the point of the European Union now? Why do we need it at all? Should we not be very grateful if it falls apart?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We are clear that we want to see a strong Europe and we want to have a strong partnership and relationship with Europe, but we will do it as a global and independent Britain.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
Contrary to the implications of the last question, is it not the case that the most likely immediate result of the geopolitical circumstances of the time, with the attitude of President Trump and the Brexit proposition, is that France and Germany will have much closer defence co-operation? The very thing that Britain has always been wary about will probably result in terms of very close defence co-operation within the European Union.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said repeatedly during this discussion, we want a strong Europe. We want a strong relationship and a new partnership with Europe. How Europe takes itself forward once we have left is for Europe to determine, but while we are still involved, we will play our strong part. I am much more optimistic, by the sound of it, than most noble Lords in this House that we will achieve a good deal for both us and our European partners.
Digital Economy Bill
Monday 6th February 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 161KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
Lord Collins of Highbury
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I have no doubt that we will constantly return to codes of practice, especially about the need for them to be revised and, I hope, improved. But the purpose of these amendments, particularly Amendment 81, is to ensure that when they are finally agreed they have strength and a statutory basis to ensure that they are properly applied. It is important that the principles and safeguards that we have debated so far are included and statutory. I am concerned that having “regard to” provides too many loopholes that will undermine the very public confidence that we seek in passing the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure all sides of the House, once again, about how we can consult broadly on these codes and ensure that they are properly referenced in legislation and properly complied with.
In Amendment 107B, we know that what is important is that corrective action can take place if there is a breach of the code. We know that measures are also in the Bill, including criminal sanctions, where data protection is breached. But what about those areas and cases where public authorities exceed those powers for supposedly public good? Will the Minister tell us what adequate measures would be in place? The Minister in the other place said that the wording “had regard to” already follows common practice in legislation, as illustrated in Section 25 of the Immigration Act 2016 and Section 77 of the Children and Families Act 2014. He argued that as the power covers a range of public authorities and devolved territories, the Government want flexibility about how the powers can be operated so that we can learn what works and adapt the code as necessary. This comes to the crux of the matter once again and why so many noble Lords have concerns about these provisions. It is this open-ended flexibility and uncertainty about where this is going to lead to that raise concerns. We are told that to put these matters into the Bill would hamper the ability to adapt for future purposes. If bodies fail to adhere to the code, the Minister will make regulations that remove their ability to share information under that power.
Part 11 of the code states:
“Government departments will expect public authorities wishing to participate in a data sharing arrangement to agree to adhere to the code before data is shared. Failure to have regard to the code may result in your public authority or organisation being removed from the relevant regulations and losing the ability to disclose, receive and use information under the powers”.
Is that really sufficient? Is that enough? What about the cases that we have heard? As the Minister said in the previous debate, departments are not infallible. I do not think that this is sufficient. We know that the Information Commissioner wants changes; we know that they want these codes not only to be improved but to have proper force. I beg to move.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I, too, shall speak to this group of amendments, having put my name to some of them. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has already raised the issue about the permissive approach in the Bill, which we have rather rejected, and the question of inserting “complied with” rather than “had regard to”. Many of the amendments deal with that issue across the various agencies involved. When you consider that this is operated in relation to various criteria to do with improving people’s physical health, their emotional well-being, their contribution to society and their social and emotional well-being, the breadth of those areas is really rather daunting. You could justify almost anything under those four areas, and I do not really believe that the code of practice could be remotely enforceable if those were the criteria that were used.
Worse still, they could be used in a rather punitive way. For example, it could be argued that it is improving people’s well-being by making them work; and if they are disabled, pursuing people who have disabilities or difficulty in getting work could be used to penalise vulnerable groups. It would affect people who are on benefits or are pensioners—all sorts of vulnerable people. There needs to be somewhat more rigour in the Bill than criteria such as those that we see there now.
Moreover, these amendments deal with a minimum consultation period, which we support. Finally, the code of practice should be laid before Parliament, which, again, would be another safeguard. We must have much more transparency and greater rigour of application, enforceability and consistency across all the agencies and with other rules of disclosure. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about these concerns. We believe that these matters must be answered and wish to understand the Government’s approach in order to decide whether we need to take this forward at a later stage.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support the various amendments in this group. “Having regard to” a matter always seems to leave some wriggle room. If there should be exceptions to compliance—because I think we are talking about compliance here, not about consistency—then those should be spelled out. I accept that having codes of practice outside primary legislation allows for flexibility, which might be useful, for a response to experience of the operation of the code and, perhaps, for changing circumstances. However, there is so much reliance on codes of practice here that an inclusive process for constructing and finalising them is very important, as well as transparency in operation.
The noble and learned Lord will probably have a better recollection than I have of the discussion during the passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill about providing transparency by way of ensuring that people who were affected by the transmission of information knew about it. This was rejected for security reasons, but that would not be the case here. The overall objective has to be transparency and inclusiveness.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 81 and the other amendments in this group are intended, of course—and I understand this—to strengthen enforcement of the codes of practice in relation to the public service delivery, debt and fraud, and research powers by requiring authorities who use the powers to “comply with” rather than “have regard to” these codes. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has sight of a loophole, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has encountered wriggle room, but I would take issue with those descriptions.
There is common ground here. We, too, believe that the codes are an important part of the data-sharing powers. However, the Government believe that “have regard to” is the right level of obligation for a code of practice. This is a legal obligation. Such persons when disclosing or using information will be expected as a matter of law to take the codes seriously and follow their requirements in all cases unless there are cogent reasons why they should not do so. It is, of course, common practice for legislation to set out the critical limitations on a power while codes of practice—which are more adaptable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, acknowledged—are advisory tools that supplement with regard to best practice, principles and guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, alluded to a situation in which an authority exceeds its powers for the public good. In such a situation—without going into the detail of it—the authority would be exceeding its powers and it would have to answer for that, whatever the public good might justify in other circumstances.
Key conditions for the disclosure and use of information are set out in the Bill, including what can be shared, by whom and for what purpose. We have followed a common approach taken by government and others, including the Information Commissioner, to provide more detail on how data are to be shared in a code of practice. That does not mean that the code is to be treated lightly. Legal consequences may follow if the code is disregarded, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee pointed out in its report on the Bill. The relevant Minister can make regulations to remove a body’s ability to share information under the power if it fails to adhere to the code. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the question as to whether that is considered sufficient in the circumstances. We do consider that that is a sufficient safeguard in the circumstances. I also remind noble Lords—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Janke—that the first requirement of the Data Protection Act is that processing of data should be fair and reasonable. That underpins in existing legislation the whole approach that should be taken to this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, sought to draw a distinction between the provisions here and those in the Investigatory Powers Act about knowledge of data transfers. Of course, although we are not necessarily dealing here with national security, we are dealing with issues such as fraud, where it would be wholly inappropriate to give people advance notice of data sharing, particularly if one were going to address issues of criminal conduct.
Amendment 107B would require breaches of the code of practice on the public service delivery power to be reported to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. It also places a duty on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to investigate serious breaches and, where necessary, to inform the relevant individual of the breach. In doing so, the commissioner would have to ask the person in breach to make submissions before making a decision. With respect, the amendment would impose a considerable additional function on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, where he or she would be bound to deal with breaches of a code of practice on information sharing which in no way relates to the commissioner’s remit of investigatory powers.
Indeed, placing such duties on the Information Commissioner would effectively be broadening the Information Commissioner’s remit without appropriate consultation. It would, as with Amendment 81B, cut right across the functions of the Information Commissioner, as distinct from the Investigatory Powers Commissioner; the Information Commissioner being responsible for upholding the Data Protection Act 1998, and also the safeguards and procedures for dealing with breaches of the code, which are already set out in various provisions. Such an amendment would blur the lines between the responsibilities of the Information Commissioner and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and potentially lead to confusion and unnecessary duplication. If, in making those observations, I referred to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner when I meant the Information Commissioner and referred to the Information Commissioner when I meant the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, that simply underlines how easy it is to cause confusion in this area.
Amendments 108, 115, 134 and 151 call for the codes to be subject to approval by Parliament. A similar requirement was also raised by the Delegated Powers Committee in its recent report. We are carefully considering that proposal and I assure noble Lords that we will be responding to it shortly. Amendments 109 and 135 would introduce a requirement for the Minister to consult publicly on the code for a minimum of 12 weeks before issuing or reissuing it. Amendments 110, 152 and 190 would require that the Minister demonstrate that responses to the public consultation,
“have been given conscientious consideration”.
The policy in respect of these powers, and much of the content of the codes of practice, have been developed over two years of open policy development with a range of public authority and civil society organisations. The code sets out procedures and best practice drawn from guidance produced by the ICO and Her Majesty’s Government. We amended Clauses 36, 45, 53 and 61 in the other place to ensure our code will be consistent with the Information Commissioner’s data-sharing code of practice. The clauses contain a requirement that the Minister consults the devolved Administrations, the Information Commissioner and any other person the Minister considers appropriate prior to the issue or reissue of the code. I assure noble Lords that these other persons will include civil society groups and experts from the data and technology areas. It is, indeed, our intention to run a public consultation before laying the code before Parliament. I need hardly add that all consultations are taken seriously by the Government and all responses considered with appropriate conscientiousness.
I understand the interest in the codes and the desire to make sure they are effective. The codes will provide a strong safeguard for the use of the power, backed up by real consequences if they are not adhered to. With that, and while we consider the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee further—as I have indicated, we intend to do that in the very near future—I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
The noble and learned Lord warned us against giving advance notice to potential fraudsters, but I think we are talking in these amendments about notice which may be in retrospect. I am looking at the noble Lord who has tabled the amendments. There are different issues, I think, about giving notice in advance and telling people that you have transferred information. Maybe we need to come back to the distinction between the two at the next stage. On the requirement to have regard but not necessarily to comply, does that not point up the real weakness of a code that is not approved by Parliament? These two bits of fragility seem to me to go hand in hand and undermine the security, as it were, of the regime.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am content that we return to the noble Baroness’s first point if she feels that there is a point of distinction to be made. On her second point, I do not accept that there is fragility in this context. We are well aware, by virtue of past practice, that this formulation is appropriate to the application of codes of practice. Indeed, the noble Baroness herself observed that when applying one’s mind to a code of practice, a degree of flexibility is necessary. One cannot freeze them. That is why we consider that the wording here is appropriate.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister for his response. Obviously, the codes of practice are key to giving a sense of security and to building public confidence. They are critical, which is why noble Lords want to see exactly how they will end up. I am very happy with the reassurance that the Minister gave regarding parliamentary involvement and consideration of the report of your Lordships’ committee. That is very welcome and we will return, obviously, to some of the issues, particularly on medical information and other information set out in other groups. We will return to the subject of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in the next group and I will explain in that discussion why we see, perhaps, a distinct role, arising from the debate this House had on the Investigatory Powers Act. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“( ) The effective maintenance of the electoral register must be specified as an objective in regulations under subsection (6).”
Lord Collins of Highbury
Are we dealing with Amendment 81ZA? I would hate to give the wrong speech on the wrong group, although I suspect that noble Lords would notice. I have been in other forums where people have not noticed, but that is another matter.
Amendment 81ZA focuses on the extension of sharing objectives to include the electoral register. A number of amendments in this group address concerns that have been raised about living in cold homes or school meals provision: basically, how we make this sharing of data more effective. I have no doubt that the Minister will say in response that the Bill will allow for this, but we want to raise on the Floor of the House the importance of these extensions of sharing objectives to the overall, broad objectives set out in Part 5.
Focusing on the electoral register, we know that the Electoral Commission has said that up to 1.9 million people could lose their right to vote as we transition to the individual registration of electors. Of course, until 2009 one person in each household completed the registration for every resident eligible to vote. It was a Labour Administration who accepted the principle, and there may be very good reasons, but the way the changes are introduced could be a disaster for our electoral system. That is why it is fundamentally important that we see data sharing as a positive way to address this potential effect on our democratic system. My noble friend Lord Stevenson has tabled an amendment to the higher education Bill that seeks to enhance the responsibility of higher education institutions to remind students of their right to register to vote—and particularly to decide where to vote. In this amendment we are trying to ensure that institutions have proper powers to share data to that end.
It must be understood that this transition to individual registration has put a huge burden on cash-strapped local councils, who need to contact 46 million people instead of 20 million. Some people have been unable to register, many of them because they simply do not have the required access that they would previously have had. This amendment focuses on people who are vulnerable, who need help, or who have not previously taken up their rights, perhaps because they do not have the necessary access or are not fully aware. That comes back to the issues—many other noble Lords will pick up the point—of fuel poverty and access to free school meals. The right to free school meals is important not only for the individual child—for the benefits the child will get—but for the funding of the educational institutions. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept these amendments, which are about ensuring that we can do these things and that these issues are addressed, even if he does not think that they should necessarily be in the Bill.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 82. This Bill is an opportunity possibly to enhance the lives of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in our society. The words of our Prime Minister always come to mind:
“a country that works for everyone”.
This amendment will help the country work for everyone. Currently, the parent of a child wishing to have a free school meal must apply for it. Not only does that provide a free school meal, which is hugely important for children because hungry children are not good learners, but it ensures that the school gets a pupil premium—a substantial sum of money—to help those disadvantaged pupils.
This simple amendment would ensure that local authorities automatically enrol those entitled to receive free school meals. Local authorities currently administer a number of benefits, such as council tax and housing benefit, so they are aware of families that would be eligible to claim free meals and would automatically contact the school. This would ensure that parents who, for a host of reasons, fail to claim would be able to do so.
It is estimated that a family with a child receiving free school meals can save up to £400 a year. Noble Lords may imagine that if the parents have more than one child the saving is quite substantial. As well as the family saving money and the child getting a free school meal it ensures that the school gets a substantial amount of money—the pupil premium—to help disadvantaged pupils.
The Minister will probably reply—as did the Minister from the other place—that the department’s own electronic eligibility checking system means that the clause is not really needed. That, however, is only a system which enables a school to check whether the parent is on the free meals register: it has speeded up the process but does not do the job that this amendment hopes to do.
I make a further point about this, at a time when we are all sensitive about the amount of private data that circulates: there is perhaps a fear that leads people to question why schools should have private data on pupils entitled to free meals. For that reason the amendment clearly states that parents will be notified before this information is made available and that there will be opt-out arrangements. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be sympathetic to this very important amendment.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I support his Amendment 82 and shall speak to Amendment 92, which is in a similar vein but relates to the warm home discount. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who have other duties in the House and would otherwise be here.
It is my pleasure to speak to Amendment 92, which seeks to test the possibilities that Clauses 30 to 32 open up. For years I have been banging away at the Department for Work and Pensions to make proper and better beneficial use, in terms of client well-being, of the vast amount of data that it has on families. That, together with the data held by HMRC, and particularly the data generated when universal credit comes in, will give the Government as a whole immensely enhanced abilities to promote well-being, particularly in our low-income households. I warmly welcome Clauses 30 to 32.
I am listening carefully and correctly to some of the interrogation that is being properly directed at the Government, because we have to get this right; it is very important that the protections are there. Subject to those protections, I am an enthusiast for making use of these provisions. I am slightly surprised that there have not been more attempts—like mine and that of my noble friend—to prise open new opportunities as the Bill goes through. This amendment tries to test the willingness, enthusiasm and ingenuity of Ministers in seeing how they can expand public services to our citizens under Clauses 30 to 32.
Amendment 92 simply seeks to improve the use of data-sharing powers to extend the reach of the warm home discount. The provenance of this amendment is work that I have been doing over months and years for the Children’s Society, and I acknowledge and pay tribute to the work it does with families, particularly with children in fuel-poor households. The Children’s Society has been making the argument to me about the importance and urgency of getting the issue of fuel poverty dealt with more adequately. We need only look at the announcement from npower last week, and indeed some of the wider economic indicators that are showing that this group of fuel-poor households is likely to find things getting a lot worse before they get any better. We need to pay attention to that.
I am told by the Children’s Society that, according to the Government’s own figures, families with children are now the biggest group affected by fuel poverty: 45% of households that can claim the warm home discount are now families with children under 18. The Children’s Society has some valuable survey evidence of a project that it carried out in Bradford and in other places, which indicates clearly the distress caused by fuel poverty. For instance, there is the fact that parents in these households are frightened to turn up the heating in cold winter months because they fear the level of the increased bills it would occasion. Some of those same parents believe that their children’s health is potentially affected by not doing so, so it is a real concern for the parents involved.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, like those of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, my three relatively small amendments in this group relate to fuel poverty. I was not at all surprised when my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury was a bit confused at the beginning of this rather mixed-up group. It covers not only my subjects but voter registration and free school meals; most of the government amendments seem to relate to water and sewerage. I was tempted to say that it covers electoral rolls, bread rolls and toilet rolls. However, my amendments deal with something entirely different and their intention is very much the same as those of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I will not repeat all that he said.
My aim here is to make the system of data sharing more effective. I recognise all the concerns expressed around this Committee about the dangers of data sharing by public bodies and I understand them, because in different circumstances I have been deeply suspicious of the gas and electricity companies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, clearly was a couple of groups ago. To make identification of the fuel poor more effective, we need more effective and comprehensive data sharing, along with the ability of different authorities and companies to share them, but this must be subject to all the safeguards. One safeguard is clearly stated in the Bill: that the information that can be used and shared in this way relates to the health of those affected by fuel poverty because they live in cold, draughty and damp homes. I do not need to spell out the effects of fuel poverty on those people’s health. It is quite important that in addition to the provisions in Clause 30(8) for helping the delivery of services and benefits, the clause should also refer to improving the health of those affected by it. My first amendment would do that.
My second and third amendments simply extend those gas and electricity operators which need to be engaged in it and will be subject to the same safeguards. It is increasingly the case that consumers and householders, including the fuel poor, have a closer affinity with the distribution networks than with their sensible supplier, which sends them the bill. To improve their situation, they will have to deal with the electricity distributor and, shortly, with the gas network distributor company. These amendments to Clause 31 deal with putting those distributors in the same category as gas and electricity suppliers. These are tidying-up amendments but they will make data sharing in this important area of fuel poverty more effective. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, spelled out why that is necessary and, in particular, why those not automatically assigned to the warm home discount need to be identified and automatically put on the list of those who receive it. If we achieve that via the Bill, it will be a very important improvement and a step towards eliminating fuel poverty in our society.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I want to ask a question about government Amendments 83A and 83B, which are about water and sewerage. Will these provisions apply only where there is a water meter? I am struggling to understand how they can work if the customer does not have metered water, and whether the information would be relevant—and how it could be used—if that is not the case. I am quite prepared to be told that I have not understood this properly but if I am right, should the provision not spell out that it is confined to that situation? That would make it clearer.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a partner in the global insurance law firm DAC Beachcroft and as chair of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, along with other interests set out in the register.
In speaking to Amendment 196A, I seek to address a small but important point on the operation of the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, or ELTO. Colleagues may recall that I also raised this when we debated the Enterprise Bill in 2015. Although it has been grouped with amendments to Clause 30—I am happy to accept the grouping—it seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 65 in Chapter 6 of the Bill, which deals with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
In 2010, the Department for Work and Pensions identified the need for a tracing office, and ELTO was established in the same year. Sadly, former employees continue to contract industrial diseases, including cancer, due to workplace exposure many years earlier. All too often, the employer is no longer in existence by the time the disease is diagnosed. This was considered by our colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions as a major obstacle to the former employees’ obtaining compensation.
ELTO was established, and the insurers are now required to provide to ELTO details of all employers’ liability policies that have been issued since April 2011. According to the information I have received, ELTO is working well. In the 11 months to the end of November last year, there were more than 178,000 successful searches of the Employers’ Liability Database, but it could be working better.
The piece of the jigsaw that is often missing is the employer’s PAYE reference number. This number is now used to identify an individual employer in the Pay as You Earn system. Each employer is given a unique reference number. If this unique reference number could be applied to the Employers’ Liability Database, it would make searches more accurate, as it would avoid problems of company names’ changing over time. Generally speaking, it would enable the correct employer to be traced.
One major obstacle is that by law ELTO is unable to gain this information under the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which prevents HMRC from sharing information except in specified circumstances. Alternatives to primary legislation have already been explored with HMRC. Although we often think of employers as large companies, many are sole traders or family partnerships. For them, the reference number could well amount to personal data, which are rightly protected from general disclosure.
The measure, which I now understand is supported by ELTO and HMRC, is proportionate. HMRC has a ready-made database of these unique reference numbers to which ELTO could be given limited access. All ELTO needs is the reference number itself and the name and address of the employer as a cross check. The amendment would permit ELTO and HMRC to set up, at no cost to HMRC, a facility to share this limited information. It will help make the ELTO database fit for the future.
Many noble Lords will know that I have the honour to be an officer of a number of all-party groups, including not only the Occupational Safety and Health All-Party Group but also the All-Party Group on Insurance and Financial Services, so I should also declare those interests because this amendment is strongly supported by my colleagues on those groups.
This amendment would provide great benefit to employees, employers and insurers alike. I hope my noble friend the Minister will feel able to accept it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. It is refreshing that, after the debate that we have had on all the concerns and worries that noble Lords have on data sharing, we now hear proposals on how data sharing can benefit various groups. This is our ambition. This is why we set the Bill up as we did and also why the devolved Administrations are so supportive. The noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Kirkwood, Lord Storey, Lord Whitty and my noble friend Lord Hunt all made valuable suggestions. I will come to some of the reasons that we agree or disagree with them, but fundamentally the principle is exactly why we set the system up.
Amendment 81ZA, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, seeks to require the effective maintenance of the electoral register to be specified as an objective in regulations under the public service delivery power. Electoral registration officers already have extensive powers to seek access to information in public records, providing it is for the purpose of ensuring that electoral registers are as complete and accurate as possible. Under current provisions, they would not be able to seek access to other public records for the purposes of identity verification if an applicant’s details cannot be matched against DWP records or local data sources.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister for his response. The problem is that these issues are not simply about entitlement but about a system in which people have to choose. The point is how you make that easier. With individual voter registration, which is a new system, there is a possibility that people will be removed from the electoral roll and therefore denied the opportunity to vote. We talk about a positive outcome. It might be one for one particular party. The boundary reviews will be based on registers that will be removing people and therefore on numbers of electors that are not necessarily the real numbers. I find it a bit disappointing that the Minister sees it as simply an administrative step.
This comes back to the fundamental point that everyone who has spoken, whether about school meals or the warm home discount, sees that this is an opportunity to improve governance and outcomes for people, obviously with the required safeguards. I think all of us in this Chamber will want to return to these issues because they are vital for the well-being of our people. In the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“( ) The Investigatory Powers Commissioner has a duty to ensure that the data protection rights of citizens are considered and protected for the purpose of the powers provided by this section.”
Lord Collins of Highbury
The Minister gave me some preliminary notice of the Government’s attitude to this amendment and alluded to the potential confusion of different roles and different names. No doubt I might even make the mistake of using the term “Information Commissioner” rather than “Investigatory Powers Commissioner”.
However, there is an important point here on which we want to probe the Government, and that is about the changing world and how we respond to it to make sure that the interests of the individual are properly thought of and protected. The point is about restoring public confidence. We have a legal framework that is structured around the Data Protection Act and a regulatory framework that allows breaches to be investigated and matters to be determined where there has been a breach. It is a system that protects the individual after the event. What we are trying to do here is what the Investigatory Powers Act, which became law at the end of last year, sought to do—that is, it does everything possible to ensure that intelligence agencies and law enforcement use only such powers as Parliament approved after a careful and well-informed debate. We cannot revert to a world in which the Government understand and apply the law in ways that were not foreseeable to the rest of us, still less to a world in which our freedoms depend on the potentially harmful activities of whistleblowers.
This amendment seeks to ensure that, in this fast-changing world, in the plans for the future use of powers identified in the Bill, the rights of the individual are not only safeguarded but are put at the head of the agenda rather than considered as an afterthought. That is why we have used the framework of the Investigatory Powers Act to raise this issue. With regard to future changes or extension of powers, who is thinking of the rights of the individual? It is important that the Government, if they are unable to deal with this consideration in today’s group, return to this subject in future provisions.
Baroness Janke
My Lords, our amendments in this group add safeguards. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to some of these: that sharing of information be minimal; that the authorised conduct be proportionate to the object of the exercise; that a privacy impact assessment be conducted; and that proposed measures be subject to public consultation.
In addition, we support the amendments advocated by the BMA. Amendment 89 would remove the subsection through which sharers of information are not bound by the principle of confidentiality. Amendment 93 is a further safeguard preventing an authorised sharer of information from disclosing identifiable health information. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, in this group I tabled Amendments 100 and 196. Within this group we are debating data sharing and the putting in place of safeguards that make us confident in the next move to make life better for the majority of people. I have one or two direct questions, particularly on the level of data that will be supplied from one authority to another. For example, does the Bill intend that information be supplied on the number of households in a given postal area where child benefit is being claimed and/or where all adults are unemployed? Would it be up to the users of the data to extract a summary picture from details of, for example, names, addresses, whether benefits are received, whether householders are unemployed or any other data?
At any level of inquiry, I presume data will be transferred such as dates of birth and marital status that, were they to fall into the wrong hands, could be used to perpetrate private fraud. No one today has mentioned private fraud, but it can come about as a result of lack of security and safeguarding. Again, perhaps the Minister will indicate what relevant provisions there are. I am unsure whether I have missed some. At earlier stages of the Bill I mentioned the amount of fraud going on and it is horrifying. If the Bill can in any way tighten up on that, it would be an advantage.
For example, will personal information cover things such as whether an individual has a diagnosis of dementia or whether a family has been a cause of concern to the social work department in their own area? Who makes these judgments? At what stage are these activated? I may not have read the Bill carefully enough to find the missing answers. I pose these fairly simple questions to make sure that our safeguarding of this information is secure.
Amendment 100 is a probing amendment that seeks to complete the explanation of what information HMRC would disclose, providing examples of the circumstances under which it would be disclosed and a complete list of the groups or persons whose information would be handed over. This relates to Clause 30, of which we spoke earlier. Subsections (9) and (10) specify the well-being of persons or households and define well-being in terms of physical or mental health, contributions to society—which we have covered slightly earlier on and which is difficult; I should be glad of clarification on that—and emotional, social and economic well-being. The latter are easier to understand.
Clause 31 refers to people living in fuel poverty. Again, we debated this previously. Fuel poverty has been defined as,
“living on a lower income in a home which cannot be kept warm at a reasonable cost”.
Clause 32 also refers to people living in fuel poverty. I do not understand what is intended, nor what will be involved for those deemed to be affected. Defining well-being in terms of well-being suggests that definitions of those covered by this legislation could depend on the personal and political stance of those making those decisions. What is “lower income”? Within what limits do homes qualify under these clauses and who will rule that they cannot be kept warm at reasonable cost? What will be the limits of powers of such a decision-maker over, for example, someone who prefers to wrap up for three months of the year so they may enjoy their garden for nine; in other words, somebody who is living in a bigger house that costs more to heat? Will an individual be able to opt not to have personal information shared within local authorities and/or with gas and electricity suppliers?
Turning now to my Amendment 196 in this group, I do not pretend to know anything about the structure, organisation or responsibilities of HMRC. Hence, I do not understand whether an “official” is someone equivalent, say, to a board member in a quoted company. I fear, however, that that is unlikely to be the case. In this era of Facebook, Snapchat and the substitution of public opinion for demonstrable fact, I am unhappy—I do not know whether other noble Lords are—that perhaps a more junior member of HMRC could decide that disclosure would be in the public interest. In other words, where does the buck stop?
Disclosure of personal information, even supposedly non-identifying, should be done only on the authority of the head of the organisation. He or she presumably will have the knowledge, experience and breadth of understanding to be sure that it cannot be combined with other data to name individuals. He or she will also, presumably, be less likely to make errors of judgment, and of course a claim of ignorance of any such disclosure would not stand up to scrutiny, as they would obviously be at the most senior level.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I will just pick up the noble Baroness’s last point about who is an official. There are examples, in other legislation, of references to “senior officials” and “designated officials”, which might be somewhere between the junior official she has in mind and the Permanent Secretary, but she is right to draw the issue to the Committee’s attention.
On an earlier group, the noble and learned Lord indicated that he was going to speak at greater length—I assume that may be on this group—on the reason for using the term “personal information” rather than “data”. Perhaps I may use my noble friend’s Amendment 213 to ensure that we get to share more of Government’s thinking. I understand the point about corporations, since in the one case, they come within the group covered, and in the other they do not. But I am still puzzled as to why such efforts have had to be made to deal with personal information and then to add in references to the Data Protection Act, rather than starting from the DPA—with any necessary exclusions—which would have taken us straight to the involvement of the Information Commissioner, the data protection principles and so on.
I wondered during the Statement whether to have a go at some alternative drafting for Report, but thought I had better wait for this discussion. But perhaps part of it boils down to a question on Clause 33(8), which says, in wording replicated elsewhere, that,
“nothing in section 30, 31 or 32 authorises … a disclosure which … contravenes the Data Protection Act”.
To look at it from the other end of that telescope, is there any personal information which is the subject of the Bill that would not fall within the DPA and therefore not be protected by that clause?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thought I would intervene to see if it might help the Minister. The code of practice does not make things any clearer. With reference to my noble friend’s very apt point about information versus data, paragraph 4 of the code says:
“The definitions of ‘personal information’ contained in the Bill are intended to ensure that the information shared through these powers is handled carefully”.
That does not sound like a particularly good legal answer to the question. It goes on:
“Though the definition of ‘personal information’ for the purposes of the Bill may differ from the definition of ‘personal data’ in the DPA, all information shared and used under the public service delivery, debt and fraud provisions must be handled in accordance with the framework of rules set out in the DPA”.
Where is that explicitly set out? It would be very helpful if the Minister, in answering, could advert to that as well.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, Amendment 81B seeks to place a duty on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to ensure that the data-protection rights of citizens are considered and protected under the public service delivery power. The effect of this amendment would be to impose similar duties on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as are already carried out by the Information Commissioner. It is for that reason that we do not consider that this amendment is necessary. I understand the points that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has made in this context. We are all concerned to ensure that these powers are ring-fenced as far as is reasonably practicable and that any breach should be policed to the extent required. However, in our view, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is not the appropriate party to deal with this matter. The Bill is not about investigatory powers, and accepting this amendment would result in a substantial and, as I sought to indicate earlier, confusing addition to the portfolio of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
We are of course concerned that there should be public confidence in the provisions of the Bill and in the whole body of data-sharing powers. I understand the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that the Investigatory Powers Act does everything possible to ensure security is there, so that only the given powers are exercised and that the rights of the individual are put at the head of any agenda, but that is clearly the intention of this Bill as well. That can be achieved by having regard to the position of the Information Commissioner in the context of the present provisions.
I understand and indeed admire the noble Lord’s suggestion that we should in some sense be seeking to future-proof the Bill. There are limits to our ability to do that, but I will return to that point in the context of the regulations that come into force in May 2018. We have already had regard to that in order to try to ensure that the provisions of the Bill will comply with imminent regulations, such as those I have just referred to.
The noble Lord also raised the question of confidentiality and the concerns that have been expressed by the medical profession in that context. Let us be clear that, as noble Lords will recollect, common-law obligations of confidentiality are rarely if ever absolute. We know that various common-law issues of confidentiality tend to be subject to one qualification or another. Concerns have been expressed over the interaction between the provisions of the Bill and medical confidentiality, primarily in respect of the statutory override within the Bill. The provisions of the Bill are clear that sharing data under the powers in the Bill does not breach any existing duty of confidentiality. That includes the common-law duty of confidentiality to the extent that it applies to patient information.
The use and processing of medical information is governed by common law, but also by the Data Protection Act 1998, by the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and indeed by specific legislation which allows, requires or prohibits certain uses of such data. There is no blanket ban on the use of medical information outside the patient-doctor context, and it is not the case that every instance of sharing such information will constitute a breach of confidentiality. Indeed, the General Medical Council’s 2017 guidance expressly states personal information can be disclosed,
“without breaching duties of confidentiality”,
in particular circumstances, one of which is where the disclosure is,
“approved through a statutory process that sets aside the common law duty of confidentiality”.
So it is acknowledged by the General Medical Council itself that this may occur from time to time, and the provisions of the Bill are structured to reflect this. They override duties of confidentiality only in order to ensure that public authorities have clarity in terms of what they can and cannot share under the powers of the Bill. I hope that goes some way to meeting his concerns about confidentiality in that context.
Amendments 84, 87, 119, 138 and 213, which are also in this group and were referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, cover a broad range of suggested additional safeguards and restrictions on the use of the powers. They seek to introduce, among other things, an express data minimisation rule, a requirement to conduct and publish a privacy impact assessment and provisions extending the Information Commissioner’s powers in respect of enforcement notices. They also introduce a provision enabling data subjects to request that inaccurate personal data disclosed under the powers be amended. We are firmly of the view that while all of these requirements represent important safeguards on the use of our powers, they are already provided for in different ways under the Bill, the codes of practice or existing legislation, including in particular the Data Protection Act 1998. Indeed, under the DPA only the minimum personal data necessary may be shared to achieve the particular objective, and all personal data that is held must be accurate. I hope that that goes some way to meeting one of the points made by my noble friend Lady Byford about excess data being given to public authorities. That is simply not permitted in the existing legislation, particularly the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. Over and above that, the Information Commissioner already has a range of mechanisms to enforce compliance with the DPA. Amendment 213, which would insert a new clause on enforcement notices, would not add to those powers in any material way.
Further, Amendment 213 requires certain information to be gathered in respect of the benefits of data-sharing arrangements. Again, that is not necessary: bodies wishing to exercise the powers in these provisions must consider benefits as part of their privacy impact assessment. We acknowledge the importance of privacy impact assessments and, following discussions with the Information Commissioner’s Office, will look to return to this matter on Report to address concerns about public authorities’ adherence to the Information Commissioner’s specific guidance on privacy impact assessments, as well as privacy notices. I hope noble Lords will accept our willingness to return to that matter in due course.
Amendment 213 would bar the processing of personal information under the powers for particular purposes. With respect and understanding of what lies behind the amendment, our approach is simpler and more complete. There are specific limited purposes for which personal information can be disclosed under Part 5 of the Bill. Other than a few limited exemptions, the disclosure or use of personal information for other purposes is not permitted. Tough new criminal sanctions will apply to all unlawful disclosures.
Amendment 87 seeks to introduce a duty to review in the public service delivery power, akin to the existing duty in the debt and fraud powers. All data-sharing arrangements under the debt and fraud powers have to be piloted and reviewed after three years to ensure that the powers deliver demonstrable benefits. The public service delivery powers are different in kind, being more conventional data-sharing powers, constructed specifically to improve the delivery of services to citizens in cases of acknowledged need, such as assisting those suffering from fuel poverty.
On that point, my noble friend Lady Byford essentially raised the question of definitions—what do we mean by “fuel poverty”, “well-being” and “warm home discount”, as mentioned in Clause 31? All this is dealt with in Part 2 of the Energy Act 2010, which contains the schemes referred to in Clause 31(3)(a). I hope further consideration of those provisions of the Bill may go some way to meeting her concerns about those definitions.
On the question of private fraud, of course we are alert to the idea that where there is data sharing there may be data intrusion, and we are determined to guard against that. That is why we seek to ring-fence these powers in the way that we do in the Bill. We have not claimed that any system we introduce will inevitably be infallible; history tells us that where we ring-fence, people will seek to go under, over or through such a fence. However, we shall try to ensure that all data that are shared in this context are kept as secure as we reasonably and practicably can keep them.
Amendment 88 would change the definition of “personal information”, a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The point here is that in the current draft “personal information” includes “a body corporate”. The existing definition is intended to capture all persons, including all corporate bodies, to ensure that taxpayer information, including that of bodies corporate, is protected irrespective of the size of the organisation. Narrowing the definition would limit the protections for HMRC data under these powers, which would be likely to affect significantly HMRC’s willingness to make use of the powers. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the disclosure of data by HMRC is subject to additional statutory controls quite distinct from the provisions of the Bill, and these have to be factored in. This is where the term “official” comes into use because the existing statutory legislation uses that term in the context of data and disclosure. Therefore, for the purposes of consistency, that term is used in this context. It is not an attempt to suggest that the janitor, or anyone else, should be responsible for disclosing relevant information—certainly not the commissioners of revenue in isolation.
Amendments 87 and 93 are also in this group. Clause 33(7) provides that a disclosure under the public service delivery power does not breach any obligation of confidence or any other restriction on the disclosure of the information. This provision ensures that public authorities can be confident that their disclosure is lawful, provided that they comply with the strict requirements of this legislation. To remove that subsection would undermine a primary objective of providing authorities with the legal certainty required to ensure efficient and effective data sharing under these powers. In other words, where they satisfy the requirements of this legislation, they do not have to go back and worry about any aspect of the common law of confidentiality on individual occasions, which would effectively make the provision unworkable.
Amendment 93 seeks to expressly exclude health data from the public service delivery clauses. I have already touched upon this. The Government believe that this amendment, while well intentioned, is unnecessary and would lead to the kind of legislative barriers that the Bill is designed to overcome. As I have indicated before, the Government recognise the particular sensitivities around identifiable health information, and indeed this was highlighted in the National Data Guardian’s recent review of data security, consent and opt-outs. For this reason, health bodies in England are not included in the draft list of bodies that will be permitted to use the powers in the Bill. Health and adult social care information, however, could potentially be of considerable assistance in bringing benefit to individuals, as this power aims to do. I acknowledge that we may wish to bring such bodies within the scope of these powers in future, but we will form a view on this after the implementation of the National Data Guardian’s recommendations and public consultation on the issue. We believe it would be wrong to rule out that possibility until that debate has been concluded. However, I underline the point that at present health bodies in England are not included in the draft list of bodies that will be permitted to use these powers.
I turn to Amendment 100. Clause 34(8) provides that the prohibition on onward disclosure, and its associated provisions, do not apply to personal information disclosed by HMRC. The amendment seeks to remove that provision. There was a suggestion that someone was seeking consistency here. Throughout Part 5 of the Bill, in order to take account of HMRC’s statutory duty of confidentiality and maintain consistency with the existing statutory framework in respect of HMRC information, the Bill contains separate provisions for the disclosure of information by HMRC. Criminal sanctions apply to the disclosure of HMRC information, but it is all framed slightly differently in order to be consistent with earlier statutory provision. I refer in particular to the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which already covers these areas. The effect of the noble Baroness’s amendment would be to create two regimes for disclosing HMRC information under this power. We suggest that that would undermine consistency between Part 5 of the Bill and the provisions that already exist under the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. I hope that that goes some way to explaining why HMRC, though not a special case, is dealt with slightly differently within Part 5.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, then referred to Amendment 196. Again, in the context of accountability for public interest disclosures of non-identifying HMRC information, the aim of Clause 65 is to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to meet requests from external organisations to provide aggregate statistics or general information, which is what other government departments do. Safeguards for disclosure of personal information will continue to apply for the reasons I have already alluded to. This amendment, again, would be inconsistent with HMRC’s existing statutory framework which authorises officials to act on behalf of the commissioners of revenue. It would not be practicable for the commissioners of revenue to have to deal with each of these requests. Indeed, it would be an unnecessary use of public resources if that was the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised a point that appears to have prompted a note from the Box which I have not yet read. I shall scan it now. And I will undertake to write to the noble Lord. On that occasion, I will use typescript.
In those circumstances, I invite noble Lords not to press these amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may have already answered this, as his response was inevitably very full and quite dense, but on my question about Clause 33(8)—and the words are repeated in other clauses—although nothing in the sections authorises a contravention of the DPA, is there personal information within the Bill that would not be within the DPA and therefore not protected by that subsection?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Although the definition of personal information differs from the definition of personal data in the DPA, all personal data shared and used under the public service delivery provisions must be handled in accordance with the framework of rules set out in the DPA, and in particular with the data protection principles, because the DPA is not overridden by this chapter. To the extent that the class of personal information is wider than personal data, although the DPA does not directly govern such information, we still expect that information will be handled in accordance with that framework because of the requirements of the codes of practice under Part 5. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his comprehensive response. Clearly, there is a lot in the codes of practice, so we await the response. I welcome, too, his commitment to come back to report on the issues that the Information Commissioner and we have raised.
Both the GMC and the BMA raised the issue of confidentiality and the common law. They obviously have legitimate concerns about the future impact. Confidentiality is not simply an issue of administration and protection administratively; it is a fundamental issue about the nature of the relationship between doctor and patient, where trust is absolutely vital for medical treatment, ongoing treatment and so on. We may have to come back to this issue at Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
“Review of the collection and use of data by government and commercial bodies
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent review of the collection and use of data by government and commercial bodies and shall lay a report of the review before each House of Parliament.(2) The review under subsection (1) shall consider—(a) the increasing use of big data analytics and privacy risks associated with big data;(b) the adequacy of current rules and regulations on data ownership;(c) the collection and use of administrative data;(d) any other matters the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) In conducting the review, the designated independent reviewer must consult—(a) specialists in big data, data ownership and administrative data;((b) those who campaign for citizens’ rights in relation to privacy, personal information and data protection; (c) any other persons and organisations the reviewer considers appropriate.(4) In this section “big data analytics” means the process of examining large datasets to uncover hidden patterns, unknown correlations, market trends, customer preferences and other useful business information.”
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, as one of my colleagues in the trade union movement used to say, there may be a sense of déjà vu: we are going to be repeating issues in these amendments. As we have said, transparency is a vital ingredient in building public confidence. If we do not have public confidence we will not have effective data sharing and therefore the aims and objectives of the Bill will not be met. That is why we are very keen to focus on the elements of how we build that confidence, with transparency as the vital ingredient. That is why we are proposing to have an independent review of the collection and use of data by government and commercial bodies. A report of that review would be put before Parliament.
Having spent a considerable part of the weekend reminding myself about the Data Protection Act—I was responsible in the trade union movement for elements of implementation of data protection—I was struck by how complex the law can be and how different elements impact on each other. That is where we need to do more to build public confidence. People are concerned, asking. “Why do they want it? How are they going to use it? Have they used it? Have they done it without my knowledge? Have I given consent? Shouldn’t I be allowed to give consent?” All those issues need explanation. That is why transparency provisions in the amendments are really important. Where there has been a breach it needs to be effectively reported and dealt with. Some of the episodes we have seen in the private sector are scandalous—breaches of data have occurred and nothing has been said for years, let alone weeks and months. Whether we like it or not, those breaches in the commercial and private sector will impact on people’s confidence about the Government’s ability to share data fairly. That is why we need to be open about how we are dealing with problems. I come back to the Minister’s point on infallibility. Of course we are not infallible; but whenever mistakes happen, we want to make sure we learn from them and minimise the risk of them happening again. That is what we seek to do in these amendments.
The more we move towards digital government, the more we need to ensure that all these issues are properly recorded. Again, that is why we are proposing mandatory transparency in the public register of data-sharing agreements. It is about building trust in the process, with people knowing they will have to be accountable for their decisions in this area.
Transparency must be central to the process, alongside privacy and security. It is one of the arguments that we would make strongly in this group of amendments. No doubt we will hear from the Minister about it being mentioned in the code of practice and how that will be vital. I agree that we have seen a lot of movement; what we want to do as we move forward is to receive reassurance that the principle of building confidence will be openness and transparency. I beg to move.
Baroness Janke
I am drawn to recall the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, when she spoke on some of these issues. She said that the technology was moving so quickly that we need to be aware that things are changing—and that it would be important for the public to trust these procedures. A review of these processes is a good thing. Equally, government sometimes changes very slowly, so it may be a better opportunity to revisit some of the issues during a review. We would certainly support that. Again, it has been drawn to our attention by a number of data breaches that have not been notified, ever—so we certainly support the processes that have been outlined in the amendments about putting these on record to have the trust and confidence of the public. Our Amendment 111 in this group is to do with individuals being notified that personal data have been disclosed about them. Again, we feel that this is very important to engender public trust in the processes that we are introducing.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 213A to 213C, which explore the Government’s commitment to transparency and how people can know about information-sharing agreements that are in place and, looking to the future, how the equivalent of a subject access request could work, explicitly to assist with fraud detection.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the comment from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee at paragraph 52, which noted that, without even allowing for parliamentary scrutiny, the powers in Clause 39 as drafted are as “inappropriately wide” as those in Clause 30, and seem to be deliberately so. Those very wide powers are of great concern. As an increase in digital technology emerges, the public need to be informed to understand how to use the resources available to them—and they need to know how data on them, as citizens, are being used. They must have confidence in the safeguards in place, otherwise we will have a population that increasingly refuses to engage with any kind of data registration.
It is unclear where health issues sit in this Bill. I declare all my interests in relation to health, as in the register. The powers can include, in Clause 30(10)(a), individuals’,
“physical and mental health and emotional well-being”.
That suggests that health data must fall within the remit of this clause, whether held originally by the NHS or whether they are then held by other bodies. It was in an interview that the Government Digital Service director-general gave as an example the large databases between the NHS and the DWP, commenting that these are large databases of citizens’ records and that we really need to be able to match them, which would suggest a read-across between the two. So while there is a prohibition in the Bill on the use of health and social care data for research, the approach may not have a prohibition in relation to data otherwise disclosed. The NHS bodies, for example, hold the data and, although the Secretary of State is not currently listed in the regulations as published, it is difficult to see how the Secretary of State could not be added to regulations at a later point.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, should make no apology for revisiting the issues of transparency and public confidence because they lie at the heart of what this Bill is attempting to achieve and are contained in Part 5. It may be déjà vu again but that is perfectly justified by the circumstances. We are all concerned to ensure that there is such transparency within these provisions as to maintain, and perhaps even restore, public confidence in the use and sharing of data.
Amendment 82ZA proposes that, within six months of the Act coming into force, an independent review of the collection and use of data by the Government and commercial organisations is conducted. With respect, the scope of the review appears extremely broad and goes much further than the provisions of Part 5. The Royal Society and the British Academy are undertaking a review to consider the ethical and legal frameworks needed in the United Kingdom as data technologies advance. We intend to consider the findings of that review when it is published. In addition, I mentioned that the general data protection regulation will come into effect in the United Kingdom in May 2018. The implementation of that regulation will represent a significant change to the data protection legal framework for both the public and private sectors, including strengthening rights for individuals so that they have more control over their personal data. We intend to work with the Information Commissioner to explore how we can best meet these requirements, as well as to improve transparency in this space. As such, we do not see the value in commissioning a further major review of data ahead of preparing to implement the new data protection framework when the regulation comes into force in May 2018.
Amendment 103 also seeks to improve the transparency of data sharing under the powers in Part 5. As I have indicated, we support this intention as transparency, along with the protection of personal data, is clearly at the heart of all these proposals. There are, however, a number of real problems with the proposed new clause. Setting the requirement and contents in primary legislation would significantly restrict our ability to explore and consider the benefits and consequences of publishing a register. For example, there may be a need to exempt the inclusion of certain types of data sharing for reasons such as national security or commercial confidentiality.
Ahead of the 2018 regulation coming into force, we will work with the Information Commissioner’s Office and other interested parties to explore how we can best meet its requirements and improve transparency. In our view, the statutory codes of practice in the Bill are a more appropriate vehicle for setting out requirements to support greater transparency. We will run a public consultation on the codes of practice as well as the required statutory consultations and we propose, as part of that, to gather views on the type of information about data sharing that should be captured and made public, as well as the risks and benefits. In addition, the draft codes already contain requirements for privacy impact assessments to be prepared and published. Further, we are continuing to explore with the Information Commissioner whether more can be done in this Bill to ensure that his codes of practices on privacy impact assessments and privacy are fully considered when data are shared under Part 5. I hope to return to this point later in the proceedings.
Amendment 104 proposes an obligation for organisations to report data breaches and submit associated audit returns to the Information Commissioner’s Office. As I have indicated, the EU general data protection regulation will apply in the United Kingdom from May 2018. The new regime will introduce tough measures on breach notification, making it a requirement for all data controllers and data processors to report breaches to the Information Commissioner’s Office if they are likely to result in a risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals, and the individuals affected must also be notified where there is a high risk. The new regime will also allow tougher penalties to be imposed on organisations in breach of the rules. I believe these will be penalties of up to 4% of the organisations’ total global annual turnover, or €20 million.
Under current arrangements, the Information Commissioner’s civil monetary penalties guidance says that he can take into account what steps, if any, the person or organisation had taken once they became aware of the contravention, when determining the amount of the monetary penalty to be issued, so there is provision for those who delay or defer the reporting of data breaches. At this stage, we are confident that the Information Commissioner has the necessary powers to take action against those organisations that are in breach of the rules so, while I accept the spirit of the amendment and understand the need for transparency, I do not believe it is necessary as the new tougher rules under the EU regulations will apply from May 2018. As I stated, under the current regime, the commissioner can and does take into account what steps, if any, an organisation has taken in addressing breaches and in deciding penalties under the Data Protection Act.
Amendment 111 would require a secure audit record to be compiled specifying the personal information shared under the public service delivery power. This well-intentioned amendment is also considered unnecessary. The code of practice that has been drafted in support of the public service delivery provisions already requires an audit to be kept by data controllers of information shared under this power, and the Information Commissioner’s data-sharing code of practice similarly requires organisations to keep records of information shared. In addition, the EU general data protection regulation will apply to Part 5 and place further specific legal obligations on organisations to maintain records of personal data shared and of processing activities. Organisations will now make the necessary preparations to comply with that regulation.
For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I emphasise that the processing of personal data under the public service delivery power must already be in accordance with the Data Protection Act. The Information Commissioner is responsible for enforcing and promoting compliance with the Data Protection Act. The commissioner undertakes a programme of consensual audits across the public and private sector to assess their processing of personal information. The commissioner also has the power to conduct compulsory audits of public sector entities to evaluate compliance with the data protection principles. The commissioner has powers to obtain access to the information she may need to conduct those assessments.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister for his response. We await the revised and improved codes of practice, which will be a fundamental ingredient in building confidence in data sharing. If there are existing powers with regard to the requirement to report breaches, I think most people in this country will wonder why Yahoo was not picked up for failing for 10 years to report a breach which could have impacted on its confidential financial information. I welcome the fact that we will come back to these issues at later stages following consultation with the Information Commissioner. We know what is in the GDPR and what we are required to do. It will come into force in May 2018 and it is very important that the Government commit to the principles in it. We may have to come back to that issue at later stages of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Disclosure of information to water and sewerage undertakers
(1) If the first and second conditions are met, a specified person may disclose information held by the person in connection with any of the person’s functions to— (a) a water or sewerage undertaker for an area which is wholly or mainly in England, or(b) a water or sewerage undertaker for an area which is wholly or mainly in Wales.(2) The first condition is that the disclosure is for the purpose of assisting people living in water poverty by—(a) reducing their water or sewerage costs,(b) improving efficiency in their use of water, or(c) improving their health or financial well-being.(3) The second condition is that the information is disclosed with the intention that it will be used by the undertaker in connection with provision in the undertaker’s charges scheme under section 143 of the Water Industry Act 1991 which is included in that scheme—(a) in compliance with regulations under section 143A of that Act which impose requirements within subsection (2)(d) of that section (power for regulations to require charges schemes to make special provision for particular classes of individual), or(b) by virtue of section 44 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (social tariffs).(4) In the case of a person (“P”) who is a specified person merely because of providing services to a public authority, the reference in subsection (1) to the functions of a specified person is limited to the functions P exercises for that purpose.(5) For the purposes of this Chapter a person lives in water poverty if the person is a member of a household living on a lower income in a home which—(a) cannot be supplied with water at a reasonable cost, or(b) cannot be supplied with sewerage services at a reasonable cost.”
“Disclosure of information by water and sewerage undertakers
(1) If the condition in subsection (2) is met, a person to whom information may be disclosed under section (Disclosure of information to water and sewerage undertakers) may disclose information held by that person to a specified person.(2) That condition is that the disclosure is for the purpose of assisting people living in water poverty in England and Wales by—(a) reducing their water or sewerage costs,(b) improving efficiency in their use of water, or(c) improving their health or financial well-being.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Brexit: Transport
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of Brexit on the transport sector in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, across the world trade normally takes place most intensively with our neighbours. There are exceptions to that, of course—not much passes between North and South Korea, for example—but, setting aside countries with major ideological and diplomatic differences, it is obviously sensible to concentrate on trade with your neighbours. Distance costs time and money.
Even the vote of 23 June did not totally undermine those basic truths. It was possible for us to leave the EU while remaining in the single market, leaving intact the basic principles of successful international trade. However, the Government have decided to go for a very hard Brexit dressed in the clothes of bold internationalism. We are turning our back on Europe and seeking friends across the other side of the world.
Whatever the agreements made for trade in goods or services with the remaining EU and the rest of the world, trade will grind to a halt if we can no longer transport our goods or personnel. Our international trade stands on the shoulders of our airlines, HGVs, shipping and ports and our railways, so transport agreements must be prioritised. We are part of EU transport agreements which will have to be unpicked and hopefully replaced. There is a host of agreements with countries beyond the EU to which we belong as EU members, and these too will have to be replaced. That is the first step to stay where we are at the moment. The transport industry’s economic impact underpins all the rest. Get this wrong and nothing functions properly, from the City of London to the car industry in Sunderland.
I start with aviation, worth £52 billion a year to our economy. We have the third-largest aviation network in the world, and 54% of scheduled commercial flights from the UK go to the EU. The single aviation market has revolutionised the way people travel, with the advent of cheap flights. Airlines can have a base in one member state and operate on a cabotage basis between other member states. Therefore, easyJet can fly not just between the UK and Italy but between Germany and France or between airports within Italy, for instance.
Obviously, airlines want to carry on doing this. Post Brexit, they want the UK to become part of the European common aviation area, but this would require acceptance of EU aviation law. They also want us to remain a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency. Unless our airlines continue to get unfettered access to EU markets, they warn of inevitably rising air fares. They need to continue to employ staff from across Europe, with current employment rights protected. There is a host of other issues, such as security, repair and maintenance arrangements, pilot licensing, the availability of slots, air traffic management and so on.
Then there is the open skies agreement between the EU and the US. We are a member by virtue of being an EU member. We are part of a single airspace block with Ireland, which will of course remain in the EU. Therefore, continuing as a part of the open skies agreement will require obvious compromise, as it will involve sharing competence with EU institutions.
The road haulage industry has a similarly complex reliance on an open EU market. Even our domestic road hauliers will be impacted by withdrawal from the EU because 60,000 EU nationals now work in UK domestic transport. Any EU operator with an international operator’s licence can transport goods between any EU countries. EU rules underpin much of the regulatory regime for the road haulage sector, covering qualifications and licensing, drivers’ hours and tachograph standards, vehicle standards, roadworthiness and so on. There is significant co-operation between enforcement agencies across Europe, and safety on our roads is dependent on EU agencies and EU standards.
The main concern of the industry is that new certificate of origin rules, permits or quota systems would lead to delays at ports and add to the cost of goods. It points out that our ports have physically developed without the space or systems to allow significant amounts of paperwork to be processed. To transport a lorry load of goods from London to Milan in 1988 required 88 separate documents; it now requires one. I think that that says it all. UK ports handle 95% of imports and exports by weight. About half our maritime trade is with the EU. The British Ports Association estimates that, based on current trade levels, HMRC will have to process about 300 million additional customs declarations each year. There is a major fear of bottlenecks and disruption at ports.
I come now to railways, where there is concern about the bedrock of staff employment rights, passenger rights and safety. Mostly, of course, trains run entirely within our borders, but the obvious exceptions are Eurostar and the freight trains running through the Channel Tunnel. The tunnel carries a quarter of the UK’s trade in goods with the EU. Of course, the dream of the Channel Tunnel is far older than the EU, but it has been built and run as part of the EU. The possibility of tariffs and quotas will have the same impact on its operators as it will on the ports. Eurostar is a UK company and its whole purpose is to link us with Europe. It has thrived on the free movement of people. The EU directive establishing a single European railway area, with common rules and principles, has opened up markets in Europe. The costs are reduced by mutual recognition of qualifications and a consistent approach to safety. Eurostar wants to continue to recruit strongly from within the EU and to work closely with rail operators in Europe.
The themes I have spoken of are echoed by the bus and coach industry. It too wants to be able to trade freely with the EU—to take passengers without needing a visa and to bid for contracts in other states. It too values the simplicity that the EU has brought and the rights of access to those markets.
I want to make a final point on infrastructure development and the Trans-European Transport Network. It developed a transnational approach to infrastructure development and is a vital source of funding. It was expected to provide between 4% and 6% of the overall cost of HS2, for instance—a significant black hole for the Government now to fill.
There are some recurring themes: free access to markets with no tariffs or barriers; free movement of labour; a common and consistent approach to maintaining security, safety, regulation, employment rights and consumer rights; the right to invest on equal terms throughout EU member states; and common environmental standards. I have not had time this evening to explore the need to work together across the European Union on vehicle standards in order to improve air quality.
Those are not my demands; they are all taken from statements made by the major transport trade bodies and companies. The transport industry wants the future to look as much like the present as possible. It believes that the EU has in general enabled its businesses to expand and thrive. I have no doubt that the Minister will talk this evening of alternative markets—a big, bold, beautiful Brexit, with Britain trading with the US, China and Australia. However, I am not comforted by last week’s White Paper.
I have no doubt that major shipping companies and the big airlines will adapt and prosper over time, but there are huge parts of the transport industry which cannot do that: the markets of HGV operators have to be among their close neighbours; for ferry companies, long-distance options are not possible; markets in China are no use for bus operators which currently take tourists down the Rhine valley; and for Eurostar and the Channel Tunnel, trade with Europe is their whole purpose. For all of them, the Government’s decision to leave the single market cuts at the roots of their business.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, rising as though from the Bench of Bishops, I take as my text this evening what the Latvian Prime Minister, Mr Maris Kucinskis, said during the weekend summit in Malta:
“What is most important is to think about a beneficial partnership … Every member state is looking to build the best possible trading relationship with the UK and I think that the whole Union will also benefit from a strong trading relationship”.
Those remarks certainly apply, as the Prime Minister of Latvia said, to transport as to everything else economically. He represents the new generation of younger, realistic EU leaders—still, small voices of calm who should be listened to very carefully.
In the end, my assessment of the impact of Brexit on the transport sector is that it will not be very great. That is because I think that the European weather is changing. Increasingly, grown-up voices, also since Christmas, have been urging the need for a change in the European weather, urging amicable separation, and no one more economically grown up—and, to me anyway, personally more admirable—than the brave German Finance Minister, Dr Wolfgang Schäuble. He was saying just that at Davos, as well as in a very carefully worded interview over the weekend in Tagesspiegel. He said that the euro was overvalued in relation to the German economy, continuing:
“We want to keep Britain close to us. London’s financial centre serves the whole European economy. London offers a quality of financial services that are not to be found on the continent”.
I respectfully agree with the man who has been German Finance Minister so successfully since 2009. What he says is critical for UK transport and much else in other economic sectors post Brexit. Flows of capital into and out of the City, where I work, are critical to the domestic economy. Had Dr Schäuble said the opposite, panic would probably have set in in the media overnight, and I think it is strange that the good news of his very positive views going forward have not yet been any more than scantily reported.
For the generality of people in the country at the moment, although the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, made her points so well, the transport matters following from Brexit are not of much concern yet—perhaps they will be later. People are more concerned about the chaos on British railways and on the Underground. That really need rapid attention. TfL and the mayor need to get going and sort out what is going on in London Underground. Above all, we need to bring about existential changes in industrial relations in the transport sector.
That said, the biggest benefits for the transport sector, by comparison, are not to be found in detailed Brexit negotiations but by our remaining stalwartly open to foreign direct investment, in a way largely unknown to most of our current EU partners. They do not necessarily welcome FDI in the same way as we do. Take the 1 February announcement of UK manufacturing figures for January 2017. It was a cracking start to the year in transport and other sectors—as my noble friend the Minister will know—and where German and French companies have long been players. We rightly regard our transport infrastructure and services as vital, but we do not protest against foreign direct investment and instead welcome it into this country. We do not adopt a protectionist attitude, unlike the French a few years back when they declared their yoghurt manufacturer, Danone, a strategic asset when it was receiving possible takeover attention from foreigners. We take a much more enlightened approach. The US has well-developed institutions governing the transport sector, and the professional consensus is that market liberalisation is well developed compared with many other member states.
Following Brexit, foreign direct investment into transport should be welcomed, whether in manufacturing or indeed service provision. Take rail services and the bidding for franchises: public procurement arrangements and international trade rules operate on the reciprocity principle. In these changing times, both sides will wish to see UK operators in the UK mirroring the treatment of EU operators wanting to win franchises in this country. It is totally mutually self-destructive not to do that. In the EU, all rail franchises must be competitively tendered in the 2019 to 2022 period, so all that is needed is for operators to continue to comply with regulations concerning safety and technical standards—ditto for UK operators wishing to compete outside the European Union, for the UK will remain an active member, and I welcome that, of the Intergovernmental Organisation for International Carriage by Rail.
I move to a second and last example, from rail to road transport. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in the closing words of her very important and interesting speech, raised the issue of vehicle standards and emissions. In my closing words, I agree with her. Here, I think Brexit will allow us to show leadership to the rest of Europe on the approval processes and procedures for vehicles and their emissions. Not only is the UK happily one of the world leaders in car manufacture, but our companies have played it straight throughout on emission measurements in this country. They have certainly played it very straight compared to the emissions scandals affecting some German and French manufacturers, which are an utter European disgrace. I think the world’s consumers will look very favourably on any additional UK approvals as backing up the global reputation of our motor manufacturers. We can take a leadership role in honesty, which will be a great selling point for the UK, its cars and transport sector and so many other areas of transport policy.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has a very overoptimistic view of the position. I agree that transport is likely to be one of the sectors least affected by Brexit, but the hope for a positive mood among the politicians of Europe, which was certainly still there after the initial shock two or three months ago, has been sadly disappointed by the way in which the Prime Minister’s definition of the UK’s bargaining position has excluded us from any form of membership of the single market and any form of real participation in the customs union. Both of those seriously affect the transport sector.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for introducing this interesting debate. She and I are both members of the same sub-committee of the EU Select Committee, which has been looking at trade. When we looked at the options for trade, at that point we still considered partial membership of the single market at least as a potential option, as with at least temporary continued membership of the customs union. We have received evidence from and talked to, formally and informally, representatives of manufacturing and of goods and services, and we are now looking at services in more detail, including transport services. The initial reaction of those industries, after the shock of the referendum vote, was panic, and then they came back with the view, sector by sector, that, “Okay, we are where we are, but we could do a sectoral deal on this front and still retain all the key issues of membership of the single market”. I am afraid the Lancaster House speech, followed by the White Paper and the Statement with the White Paper last week, have cut off that possibility.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, transport has been hugely integrated across Europe for the past 40 years—not totally but to a significant degree. A regulatory structure applies to the whole of European transport, including on issues of safety, ownership, routes and vehicle standards, as has been said. These are all easy to deal with within the single market; they become much less easy outside the single market.
In aviation, there is probably greater scope for doing a bespoke deal than there is for the other sectors. European airspace already extends to some extent beyond the European Union—to Norway, Iceland and some of the Balkan countries—but it is very important that we establish early on in the negotiations that aviation is dealt with as a one-off. Not only does it define the use of European airspace and our access to European airspace, which at the moment also includes issues of establishment and whether UK-owned airlines or UK-domiciled airlines can operate effectively in other countries and within other countries, but it also defines our relationship with the rest of the world, including the open skies agreement with the United States. We need to retain that. That can probably be dealt with in a separate deal. Whether it could be dealt with in a separate deal entirely within a free trade agreement—which appears to be now where we are in terms of narrowing down our options, which we have, unfortunately, done over the past couple of months—is not entirely clear.
If we were to take the jump off the cliff, concluding that no deal is better than a bad deal, and go to WTO standards, we would still probably be able to do a separate deal on aviation, but that would require a lot of negotiation, hard bargaining and recognition of what the key British interests are in terms of retention of routes, slots, airline establishment and so forth. Aviation is somewhat different from the other modes of transport. Its regulatory system is very much an EU responsibility and competence.
I could argue that, if we reverted to control of the rail system with renationalisation of the railways, which I think is still the Labour Party’s policy, that would be more easily achieved outside the EU. It is not completely banned by the fourth railway package that we are currently negotiating, but it would be more difficult were we to remain members of the EU. However, the through routes to which the noble Baroness referred, such as the Eurostar and the large amount of freight that is carried by railways and so forth, all affect the railway sector. That is an essential part of the single market mechanism, and we will be outside the single market mechanism.
In road transport, there are a whole range of regulatory structures involving driver hours, vehicle standards, vignettes and cabotage arrangements and so forth. Drivers are an international workforce, so getting control of migration may limit the degree to which British operators and foreign operators trying to trade import and export from the UK have access to a skilled workforce. Once again, road transport arrangements are a key part of the single market, and we will be outside the single market.
On shipping, a lot of shipping is between ourselves and Europe and there will be arrangements on safety, standards and routes that are part of the single market. But the far more important aspect of the maritime situation is ports. It may be beneficial for the owners of UK private ports, which are by and large privately owned within the UK, to be free of the regulatory structure that exists within Europe, which is largely geared to publicly owned ports. The problem for ports is not ownership or regulation but that, outside of the customs union, we will face all sorts of additional responsibilities on port administration, port space and the cost at the port level. If we are to be outside of the customs union, the movement of people and goods through our ports will be a much more complex issue. It will require space to check, and it will require administration and bureaucracy. Some of it can be subject to electronic arrangements these days, but much of it cannot. In the end, because of the configuration of most UK ports, it will be difficult to extend the time, parking space and so forth which, even under the current arrangements, have been under some considerable strain, as we have seen particularly in Dover, over recent years. The need for additional space, checks and bureaucracy and the delays in shifting goods by road, rail through our ports and through our shipping will significantly increase.
All that is because we have taken a decision in principle that we will move away from the customs union. The ambiguous words in the Lancaster House speech have now been whittled down to mean that any continued co-operation is on administrative arrangements. Desirable as those may be, they will not stop all the pressure on our ports, our roads, our shipping and our rail systems. The narrowing down of the options by the Lancaster House speech has put a greater burden on transport than looked like being the case a few weeks ago.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I will add some burdens to the Minister in his reply by mentioning other factors that must be taken into account. I will talk about the British bus building industry. It is one of our great successes, with Wrights of Ballymena, Alexander Dennis in Scotland and Optare in Leeds. They are world leaders in the manufacture of buses. When we talk about buses, we always talk about all the components that go into building buses. I want to know that these people will be able to trade with countries in Europe on the same basis as they do now. If they are not, it will immediately deal a blow to employment prospects here. There are plenty of other people waiting to fill the gaps that we create for bus purchases.
Secondly, I am concerned about road safety. Figures published in the last couple of days show that serious road casualties of children are going up again, quite steeply. In statistics published by the Department for Transport, little coloured markers show each road user—pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and cars. But lorries are missing. The need to keep the strictest control on lorries is vital if road safety is to be enhanced. Most serious casualties involve one or more heavy goods vehicles. Any race to the bottom that may be envisaged to allow the road haulage market to be liberalised must be balanced very carefully with the damaging effects of that on road safety and on the environment.
The existing railway franchise competitions, which when the railways were privatised were envisaged as something quite separate from the state, are now populated heavily by not only European Governments but foreign Governments. To that extent, I suppose they are nationalised. However, if they withdrew from competitions, which is a possibility, there would be very little competition left in the British market. Very often, they are one of two bidders, or two out of three, for franchises. They mostly run the trains very well and bring a lot of experience, but if we cut ourselves off, that element of competition will not be available to us.
Lastly, I turn to the position of Airbus. It is a joint venture between France, Germany, Britain and, I think, Italy. A huge number of skilled workers in Cheshire depend on Airbus for their living. If the Airbus consortium were broken up in any way, Cheshire could lose out very heavily because there are manufacturers on the continent of Europe that will willingly step into the void left by our withdrawal, and there will be tremendous casualties. That applies in a lot of other areas besides transport. A lot of employment depends on our remaining in the European Union. The examples that I have cited involve transport—I have tried to stick to this particular debate—but I am sure there are many others in many other areas.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for securing this debate because there are interesting and important issues that we have to discuss. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned the leadership of the UK on emissions. He may or may not be right, but when it comes to the production of emissions, which is the dirty air that we breathe in our major cities, the European Union has launched infraction proceedings against the British Government because we have not cleaned up the air that we should have under European regulations. There are two sides to this. On so many environmental things, I do not believe that our Governments—of whichever party—would have done as much as they have or should without pressure from European legislation.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. I am also on the board of United Kingdom Trade and Investment in Europe, which is a small group of companies and people in Brussels whose aim is to facilitate the knowledge of what UK organisations need to work in the European Union generally. Now, of course, they are also trying to get a feel for what the position of the European institutions might be when it comes to negotiations. The first comment from there—which I quote often as I am sure it is right—is that the White Paper, which many noble Lords have discussed this evening, will be seen in Brussels and many other national capitals as the UK Government picking and choosing from a menu and wanting to retain access to the single market while gaining more control over migration. I am sure Angela Merkel will remain unwavering, as she has said on many occasions that Europe’s four freedoms are inseparable.
When it comes to transport, the White Paper helpfully shows on page 53 that 40% of our exports are to the European Union. It is as well to remember that this is not just a one-way export, because over the last 40 years with the single market, freight has gone backwards and forwards many times in the course of its manufacture or distribution. As other noble Lords have said, it generally moves without too much obstruction and it has become extremely efficient in the way that it has been done.
I find it surprising that the White Paper does not mention rail, maritime or ports. It mentions air and road, and the problems might be much the same, but perhaps the solutions are not. If we think that one of the important issues is for our freight operators to be able to operate across Europe, we need to recall that it was only 25 years ago that cabotage was abolished, which was particularly enforced in France and prevented our own hauliers bringing back loads from France to the UK. That was abolished as part of the negotiations on the Channel Tunnel, on which I worked, and is not something we want to go back to.
Turning briefly to railway legislation, as noble Lords have said, it is very important, if we are to use railway traffic across Europe from here, which I hope we will continue to do, that the standards of the legislation are Europe-wide. I recall about five years ago, a manufacturer of some excellent railway wagons in this country wanted the wagons to be able to operate in France. Because they had to be approved by the French standards agency, many things were found wrong with them and they never went there. If they had been manufactured in France, I am convinced there would have been no problem at all. One of the successes of the European work in the last few years has been the creation of the European Railway Agency, which now has the ability to approve rolling stock on a Europe-wide basis. That is incredibly useful for our manufacturers and I hope it will continue.
As other noble Lords have said, the biggest problem will come on the frontiers themselves. I understood from a colleague today that, if there were a 24-hour traffic jam at Dover, it would stretch up the M20, the M2 and the A2, and round the M25 as far as Stansted airport. This is the importance that we must attach to getting the traffic through Dover on time and as freely as possible. The noble Baroness mentioned 390 million filings a year, and she is absolutely right, but how is this to be done? I am told that the French customs authorities already employ three times the number of staff that we do. We get delays. The incredible thing is that the number of units of freight going through Dover has increased by 32% in four years. Depending on what happens to our trade generally with the rest of the European Union, that might not matter very much; it may not go on. The free flow of the documentation—it all seems to go through Dover at the moment, apart from what goes through the Channel Tunnel—is vital for our future trading and prosperity.
The biggest problem—which is not identified in the White Paper, although other noble Lords may have referred to it—is the uncertainty. Companies, operators, exporters, importers and forwarders want to know what is happening, when it will happen and how much it will affect their business. Do they have to change their manufacture or distribution from the UK to France or somewhere else? All the big sheds that have been built around this country for distribution might have to go back; perhaps there will be more in France. I hope the Government will tell us very quickly what is going to go on, what is happening and when, for the sake of our industry.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the gap on this particular issue. Many will know that, over the years, I have asked many questions about road traffic accidents and so on along the A55 in north Wales. The proposal, if we leave the European Union, that we will have different road regulations leads us to think that the situation is even more worrying and causing more concern than it has in the past.
When we consider the borders of the European Union, we speak of the border between the south and the north of Ireland, a border that does not seem to be causing a great deal of anxiety—and yet, who knows? But there is another border; that of the Irish Sea. It is the border between Holyhead and Haverford West and the Irish ports. The Irish Sea will be a border. How will we tackle that border? We have large vehicles coming from, say, Dover. They will be under different regulations, European regulations, up to Dover; and then from Dover to Holyhead they will be under UK regulations. I suggest that the regulations from Europe have saved many serious accidents along the A55 and other roads affected.
When we consider the overloading of lorries, the length of drivers’ hours, poor roadworthiness and other abuses of regulations, these are all regulated from Europe. VOSA staff have the power to stop a lorry if the driver has exceeded his allotted hours, or the lorry is overloaded or in poor mechanical condition. Many serious accidents have been avoided because of these European regulations. Will the Minister tell the House how these arrangements with the European regulations are working at present and what traffic arrangements will apply if we leave the European Union?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for securing this debate on an issue that is not necessarily at the top of the list when we consider the implications for this country of leaving the European Union, despite the fact that transport plays a critical role in supporting our economy. For that reason, there needs to be some clarity over what we are seeking to achieve in the forthcoming negotiations on our exit from the European Union in respect of each of the major sectors of our transport industry. The priority should be, at the very least, to avoid any adverse impact on jobs, the economy and living standards. Are those the Government’s priorities or do they consider other objectives more important? If so, what are those different priorities?
Our aviation sector is the largest in Europe and the third largest in the world, supporting some 1 million jobs. Airlines that operate from within the UK are able to rely on the EU single aviation market, which allows any airline owned and controlled by nationals of EU member states to operate freely anywhere within the EU without restrictions on capacity, frequency or pricing. Additionally, EU carriers are able to take advantage of the traffic rights contained in the many air services agreements that the EU has negotiated on behalf of all member states with non-EU countries.
At present, we are a de facto signatory to these agreements as an EU member state. When we leave the EU, and if we do not retain any form of European common aviation area membership, our airlines will need to negotiate new rights, from outside the EU, to operate freely within the EU and to operate transatlantic routes. What are the Government’s objectives in relation to protecting, or not protecting, the existing rights of our airlines over where they can fly under existing European aviation agreements? The Government’s White Paper is not as clear as it might be on this point, referring in paragraph 8.32 to,
“a clear interest for all sides to seek arrangements”.
Between 2011 and 2015, a quarter of all European Investment Bank lending to the United Kingdom was for transport projects. Transport for London, for example, borrowed £1 billion from the EIB to part-finance Crossrail. In addition, the European Commission provides direct funding for transport infrastructure projects. Half the cost of the ground investigation works for phase 1 of the HS2 route between London and the West Midlands was funded from Europe, and potential EU funding formed part of the Government’s case for giving HS2 the go-ahead. Will the Government confirm that they will make up any shortfall in investment in the rail network arising from the loss of direct EU funding or loans from the European Investment Bank? Will the Government also say what they estimate that shortfall in investment is expected to be?
The main European Union legislation as it relates to railways is contained in the three railway packages that have been passed, and in the latest fourth railway package. The individual pieces of legislation which make up these packages are wide-ranging and include prescribing how railways can be structured, financed and run. To what extent do the Government see these packages, and the measures they contain, as relevant and applicable to our rail industry beyond the immediate term, once we have left the European Union? On road haulage, will the Government seek to ensure, as part of the Brexit negotiations, the continuation of the practice that enables British hauliers to carry goods between EU member states? Or do the Government not see this as a priority once we have left the European Union?
Will the Government also seek to ensure that British driving licences will continue to be exchangeable with those of EU member states after we have left the EU, so that UK nationals, for example, who migrate to a country in the EU will not have to take another test in the new country? Or will this issue not be a priority for the Government? More than one-fifth of UK international trade involves transport by ship to and from EU countries, and more than 90% of UK trade in weight is handled by ports. If it is the Government’s expectation that we will no longer be part of the single market and the customs union, what guarantees can the Government give that this will not involve establishing new customs checks on imports and exports, which could cause considerable congestion at UK and mainland European ports and will potentially have an adverse impact on maritime trade and our maritime transport sector, as well as on road, rail and airline freight traffic?
However, it is not just the movement of goods that could be an issue following Brexit. The main transport sectors have been affected by the movement of people across mainland Europe seeking to come to this country. One unauthorised method of trying to reach this country has been through seeking to travel undetected on a heavy goods vehicle. Certainly until recently, some leading figures in the road haulage industry considered that the number coming to this country in this way ran into the tens of thousands per year despite, for example, the checks undertaken, and co-operation given, at ports on the other side of the English Channel.
Can the Minister indicate what the Government’s estimate is of the number of people gaining unauthorised entry to this country per year, and how they intend to address this situation during the negotiations on our withdrawal from the European Union, bearing in mind the current impact on our transport industry despite the checks and co-operation, and the potential impact after we have left the European Union? Will our withdrawal from the European Union lead to the need for more extensive and time-consuming checks at our own ports to control and stop unauthorised entry into this country, or is it envisaged that the existing co-operation and support we receive from adjacent mainland European countries over checking for unauthorised entry to this country will continue after we have left the European Union?
If that existing co-operation and support is less likely to be offered when we break away from, and cease to be part of, the European Union, what do the Government consider could be the consequences for border checks at our points of entry and for those sections of the road haulage, rail and maritime transport industries in this country that are involved in the international carriage of goods and passengers?
There are other potential impacts of Brexit on the transport industry in this country that I have not touched on, including impacts in the fields of the environment and health and safety. I hope, however, that the Minister will be able to provide some answers to the questions I and other noble Lords have raised in this debate about the potential impact of Brexit, and the Government’s objectives and priorities for the different sectors of our transport industry in the forthcoming negotiations on our withdrawal from the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for this opportunity to discuss the important issue of the UK’s exit from the European Union and related transport matters. I am also grateful for the chance to respond to the points raised during this debate, and if there are questions that I am unable to answer within the time limits I shall write to noble Lords about them.
First I will address the general points raised. It is the Government’s very strong view that, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister herself articulated in her speech of 17 January, we should be “a truly global Britain”. What does this mean? As she explained, it means a “stronger, fairer, more united” country, one that is outward-looking, open for business and a magnet for international talent. It will be,
“an ambitious country that goes out into the world to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike”.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made the role of the single market quite clear. He is right: as the Prime Minister has made clear, Britain will not be a member of the single market. As EU leaders have themselves made clear—it was also a point made by two noble Lords during the debate—staying in the single market would mean accepting the four freedoms and a role for the European Court of Justice. In the Prime Minister’s words:
“It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all”.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in the various questions he raised, asked about the priorities, and I agree with him that transport is vital in realising this vision of a global Britain. These principles will inform our approach for transport in the negotiations ahead.
There have been a number of points about how different modes of transport will be affected by Brexit. As we all acknowledge, transport providers move huge numbers of passengers by air, road, rail and sea, and our logistics providers ensure that vital goods are moved efficiently. Let me be clear: we want them to continue doing that with minimum hindrance. Of course, I acknowledge that when we leave the European Union our relationship will be different. As the Prime Minister has explained, when we leave the EU we will leave the internal market. Our focus as we discuss our future relationship with our EU partners will therefore be on finding sensible ways to allow transport operations to continue. I am sure that noble Lords will accept that it is too soon to say precisely what those arrangements will look like, but I believe that all citizens and businesses in Europe have a shared interest in finding arrangements that work for us here in the United Kingdom and for the remaining members of the European Union.
I will address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, in his contribution on the White Paper and its specifics on different modes of transport. He acknowledged that air and road haulage are mentioned, but he should not infer from that that other modes have been forgotten, namely sea and rail transport. We are making thorough preparations for negotiations covering all modes. As I have said to noble Lords during Questions, we continue to meet practitioners and industry representatives across all modes of transport to ensure that their priorities are reflected in the negotiations with our European partners.
If I may address this issue sector by sector, I will start with my own portfolio as Minister for Aviation. The UK aviation industry is of course world leading. As noble Lords have acknowledged, our airports service the third-largest aviation market in the world and the largest in Europe. Demand for flights continues to grow and UK airlines have seized opportunities globally, including those offered through European aviation markets. The Prime Minister made it clear, as did last week’s White Paper, that we will seek new strategic partnerships with the European Union, including wide-reaching, bold and ambitious free trade agreements. Aviation should be a part of that, so that citizens in the UK and the EU can continue to access air travel as they do now.
I assure your Lordships that the Government are working closely with the aviation industry to ensure we understand its priorities and needs as we start discussions with the EU. I have attended very constructive, pragmatic and positive meetings with representatives from across the aviation industry, along with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis. We stressed the point then that our air connections with Europe are important, but we also have an opportunity to widen our horizons. Leaving the European Union gives us more freedom to make our own aviation agreements with countries beyond Europe. Last year, after my appointment as Aviation Minister, I signed a deal with China that will more than double the number of flights operated between our two countries, boosting trade and tourism.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, talked within the aviation context about the importance of the European Aviation Safety Agency, or EASA. As she will be aware, the UK has played a pivotal and active role in developing air safety standards. Our expertise is valued and recognised. We therefore hope and expect that all sides will value our continued participation—a sentiment which my noble friend Lord Patten reflected in his contribution.
Britain is open for business and open to the rest of the world. The connectivity provided by aviation is essential to making this happen. Whether it is new agreements such as that with China, our support for a third runway at Heathrow or the new aviation strategy, we will do what is necessary to support our future prosperity and growth. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that this includes ensuring the prioritising and protection of jobs. He mentioned the example of Airbus, a corporation which we continue to work with not just in the UK but across Europe to ensure its presence on the global market.
If I may turn to road haulage, I mentioned the importance of the logistics industry in my opening comments. We are of course very much dependent on road hauliers. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, makes sure that we are fully aware of the importance of road haulage across many areas when we discuss it in this House. It should not be understated as, without those hauliers, our shops would be empty and our industry would grind to a halt. The logistics industry plays an important role by doing a first-class job in transporting goods to where they need to go.
The vast majority of lorries on our roads undertake domestic deliveries and never leave the country, yet a number make international journeys. Over 80% of these lorries are owned by European firms, not UK ones. Both the UK and the EU will want sensible arrangements in the future that allow goods to flow freely from and to the UK. I also want to ensure that UK hauliers have fair opportunities to win international business. I assure your Lordships that we are working hard on this objective as we prepare for negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the important issue of lorries and strict controls on road safety, as did the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, on the particular issue that he raised about the A55. I assure both noble Lords and the House that, as the Government have stated before, the great repeal Bill will act as the basis for ensuring that all EU legislation is transposed into UK legislation. The transition will ensure that those kinds of safety regulations are sustained and maintained.
The maritime sector has been operating successfully for many centuries, as many noble Lords noted, trading freely between ports across the world long before the European Union came into being. There is no reason why that will not continue after we leave. The UK has always been a leading maritime nation, and we will continue to build on this, taking a higher profile in the International Maritime Organization. Of course, as noble Lords will know, that is based in London. We will be facilitating international maritime trade, helping attract more maritime business to the UK and promoting the UK flag. The Government and industry have been working together to identify a shared goal of continued growth over the coming year and beyond. Given our exit from the EU, we will drive forward this work through the maritime growth study.
I turn briefly to railways. The creation of the EU internal market for rail services has been slower than for other modes, but the past 20 years have seen the opening up of international services. The British railway network is essentially a domestic network, so the effects of leaving the EU will be limited. However, we of course have one international connection with continental Europe—the Channel Tunnel. Let us not forget the Belfast-to-Dublin link too. We will focus on ensuring that these services can continue as now. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that we will ensure that, in everyone’s interest.
Across the transport sector we are determined to agree the best arrangements for Britain. The Government will continue to listen to our transport industries as their views develop. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the issue of rail franchising. We will not want to limit EU bidders in bidding for franchises. That will be part of the message to ensure that we are truly open for business.
We have world-class expertise in this country across many sectors, as my noble friend Lord Patten noted—in the automotive sector, in aerospace, in logistics, in transport engineering and much more. We must be confident in offering this to the world. We have every reason to be confident. Anyone who has seen the work on Crossrail—and I am proud to be the Minister for Crossrail—in this city will know that this country is capable of world-class engineering. It is recognised internationally. Country delegations visiting the UK want to see what Crossrail is all about.
Our departure from the EU is an unprecedented opportunity to shape our future. We must take advantage of all the opportunities it offers. We will get out into the world and do business right across the globe. Yes, I say to the noble Baroness, it is a bold and ambitious vision. The message we take to the world is this: the UK remains open for business. We are the same positive, pragmatic, outward-looking, globally minded nation we always were. We will continue to strengthen our role and our international partnerships on the global stage.
Digital Economy Bill
Monday 6th February 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Digital Economy Act 2017 View all Digital Economy Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 80-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 161KB) - (6 Feb 2017)
Baroness Buscombe
(a) is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or(b) is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.”
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, this group consists of mainly technical amendments to make sure the Bill works in the way it is meant to. Although they are technical, they are important. They fall into four broad subject areas: whistleblowing and journalistic freedoms; the meaning of “anti-social behaviour”; references to the Investigatory Powers Act; and the description and powers of devolved authorities.
In relation to whistleblowing and journalistic freedom, the first series of amendments relates to the new criminal sanctions for unlawful disclosure of personal information disclosed under the powers. Concerns were raised that the clauses as drafted could criminalise disclosures made by whistleblowers and journalists making disclosures in the public interest. This was never the Government’s intention. These amendments make sure that disclosures made by whistleblowers and journalists will not be subject to criminal sanctions.
There is a distinction here in terms of how the amendments address HMRC information and non-HMRC information. In respect of non-HMRC information, the amendments introduce additional exemptions to the general prohibition on further disclosure to cover “protected disclosures” under the Employment Rights Act 1996, which will protect whistleblowers pursuing the proper channels for disclosure. Disclosures made for the purposes of journalism are also removed from the criminal sanctions, provided that the disclosure is in the public interest.
There are already separate provisions in each of these chapters for personal information disclosed by HMRC. These amendments make clear that the criminal sanction for unlawful disclosure applies only to an official who wrongfully discloses HMRC information outside the permitted scope of the information gateways in Part 5 of the Bill at Chapters 1, 3, 4 and 5. This brings the provision into line with HMRC’s statutory regime in the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 and its other statutory information gateways.
I am conscious that the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Collins of Highbury, have two amendments that relate to this section, Amendments 138A and 146A. I suggest that I reply to those amendments separately after hearing from noble Lords.
The second series of amendments concerns the definition of anti-social behaviour. Chapters 1, 3, 4 and 5 of Part 5 all contain a general rule restricting the use of information disclosed under these powers to the particular purpose for which it was shared and a general prohibition on further disclosure. There are a number of exceptions to these rules. A previous amendment added an exception enabling disclosures made for the prevention of anti-social behaviour. The definition as currently drafted needs to be adjusted to work in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These amendments provide a revised definition that works across the UK.
In relation to reflecting the enactment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, the third series of amendments is also minor and technical in nature. The public service delivery, debt, fraud, research and statistics clauses provide that information cannot be disclosed under these powers if that would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998 or if it is prohibited by Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—commonly known in your Lordships’ House as RIPA. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 received Royal Assent last December and will replace RIPA. These amendments replace the references to RIPA with references to the equivalent provisions in the IPA, with a provision for RIPA until that Act is fully in force.
Regarding devolved public authorities, the final series of amendments facilitates information sharing across the United Kingdom, including by and with public authorities in devolved Administrations. The amendments broadly fall into two categories, which I will take in turn. The first category provides personal information disclosed by Revenue Scotland and the Welsh Revenue Authority with equivalent protection to that given by Clause 60 to personal information disclosed by HMRC. In order to protect information relating to taxpayers, these two new clauses provide, as is the case for personal information disclosed by HMRC, that persons who are processing Revenue Scotland or Welsh Revenue Authority information cannot further disclose that information without the consent of Revenue Scotland or the Welsh Revenue Authority, as applicable. Secondly, reflecting the Government’s amendments to Clause 60, the amendments provide that persons who receive Revenue Scotland or Welsh Revenue Authority information under Clause 57(1) also cannot further disclose that information with the consent of Revenue Scotland or the Welsh Revenue Authority, as applicable.
Amendments 171 and 172 are consequential amendments to those tabled separately in respect of preventing unlawful disclosures under the research power. The first of these amendments is necessary to ensure that the separate safeguards regime for HMRC that has been maintained throughout Part 5 also applies to the criminal offence as amended. The second ensures that the separate arrangements for HMRC will be mirrored in respect of Revenue Scotland and the Welsh Revenue Authority.
The second category ensures that the definition of “Welsh body” in Part 5 is consistent with the definition of “devolved Welsh authority”, as will be enacted by the Wales Bill. The amendments will ensure that no devolved Welsh authority will be inadvertently excluded from the relevant Part 5 powers. The amendments also provide for Welsh Ministers to commence the provisions which relate to the disclosure of information by the Welsh Revenue Authority. This reflects the fact that the Welsh Revenue Authority is not yet operational. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very well-read response to the questions we all had about these technical amendments, although some of them were not quite technical of course. In terms of the four categories, I listened to three very carefully, and I will read what she said in Hansard, but we have no further comments to make on them at this stage.
She touched on the issue in relation to which we have two amendments down. I am grateful to the Government for responding so quickly to the discussion in another place on this issue, because as originally drafted, the Bill would have criminalised disclosures by whistleblowers and investigative journalists revealing matters of legitimate public interest. The point was picked up and discussed at some length, and had attracted interest from a wide range of people such as Sir Peter Bottomley and Helen Goodman, who raised it. The Minister in another place undertook to take it back, and we have now had the amendments put forward.
Those of your Lordships who have bothered to read the amendments in Clauses 50 and 51 will recognise that the wording is very similar in both cases. The difference, narrowly put, is that the amendment that we were advised would take the trick in this area included not just print journalism but also broadcast journalism. I am not certain whether that is necessary or not, but the Government have come forward with a slightly narrower point of view. I think we agree the aim, and it may just be a question of the correct wording, so unless there is any particular issue, we can do this either by correspondence or perhaps in a quick meeting, and I do not think there is anything on this point that need detain the Committee further. We are agreed and are delighted that the Government are making the move. It is just a question of trying to use what time we have to make sure that we have absolutely nailed it down completely.
Having said that, what has proved difficult in other pieces of legislation is how one defines whistleblowers. There is no attempt to do that here; the test is simply whether or not what has been disclosed was in the public interest. Again, there might just be something around that where we might look at other discussions and come back on it. But for the moment, I will leave it.
Baroness Buscombe
I thank the noble Lord for that. The opposition amendment makes specific reference to broadcast transmission when the government amendment on this topic does not. However, the word “publication” in our view can be construed sufficiently broadly to cover broadcast media. Section 32(6) of the Data Protection Act 1998 provides that:
“For the purposes of this Act ‘publish’, in relation to journalistic … material, means make available to the public or any section of the public”.
The ICO guidance on this indicates that publication for these purposes would therefore cover broadcast. As a result these additional changes are not necessary.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
It is quite an interesting point. The world has moved on since those original drafts, and we have to think a bit more carefully about what happens on YouTube and whether disclosure on social media will be covered by this. I do not dissent from what is being said but would just like to be certain that we have used this opportunity, which may not come again, to make sure we have this nailed.
Baroness Buscombe
I thank the noble Lord for what he has said and absolutely understand where he is coming from.
Baroness Buscombe
Baroness Buscombe
Baroness Buscombe
“( ) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (8)(b) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
Baroness Buscombe
Baroness Buscombe
Baroness Buscombe
“( ) which is a protected disclosure for any of the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (SI 1996/1919 (NI 16)),( ) consisting of the publication of information for the purposes of journalism, where the publication of the information is in the public interest,”
Baroness Buscombe
(a) is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or(b) is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.”
Baroness Buscombe
Baroness Buscombe
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
“Cyber-security reporting
(1) The Companies Act 2006 is amended as follows.(2) After section 416 insert—“416A Contents of directors’ report: cyber-security(1) The directors of a company must prepare a cyber-security report for each financial year setting out measures the company is taking to address cyber-security risk.(2) This report should include—(a) cyber-security audits undertaken by the company,(b) details of breaches notifiable under the General Data Protection Regulation,(c) measures in place to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of data processing systems, and(d) processes in place to test and evaluate data protection measures and information technology systems.(3) Cyber-security audits must be undertaken by organisations accredited by the Secretary of State.(4) The cyber-security report must be approved by the board of directors and signed on behalf of the board by a director or the secretary of the company.(5) If a report is approved that does not comply with the requirements of this section, the directors commit an offence.(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine.””
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register, particularly to the fact that I am chairman of the Information Assurance Advisory Council, chair of the advisory board of Thales UK and a member of the advisory board of IRM, among other cyber-interested companies.
This Bill is about the digital economy, but it contains very little mention of security. Yet cybersecurity is essential, both to the proper functioning of the internet, on which we so rely, and to the trust we place in the digital economy. Global research has been done by the Information Systems Audit and Control Association of the United States of America, and I am indebted to it for its help on these amendments. That research has shown that two-thirds of chief executives of major corporations do not have confidence in their workforces to deal with anything beyond the simplest of data breaches. We all know that there has been no shortage of high-profile data breaches on both sides of the Atlantic over the last 12 months. That has damaged the economic performance of companies and their stock price, and has significantly reduced consumer and business confidence.
I congratulate the Government on making real progress in this area. They have introduced Cyber Essentials, which has been helpful in boosting implementation of cyber controls. I suggest, though, that the uptake of Cyber Essentials has been disappointing. It is not always a requirement that companies observe even the relatively low level of assurance that Cyber Essentials suggests. I use the word “suggests” because of course it is not compulsory. Equally, the new cybersecurity strategy has brought £1.9 billion into developing a capability across the whole of society to address everything from the biggest companies to individual citizens. The Minister of State for Digital and Culture recently indicated in another place that the Government intend to implement the General Data Protection Regulation in full. That is a good thing, but I very much doubt that businesses—and probably even government departments—are anywhere near ready for the GDPR, nor as far along as they really should be by this stage.
In view of the existential nature of our reliance on cyber nowadays, I therefore suggest that we need to go further. Consumers, investors, executives and government alike all need confidence that businesses are taking appropriate steps to safeguard their data and their IT systems—and those of their supply chains as well—from malicious activity. So, I have decided to be helpful. I propose these amendments, which introduce the notion of a cyber audit. They are probing amendments: their wording creates obligations that are perhaps more imperative than I would like to see, because I believe we should start with encouragement rather than requirement.
Everyone is now accepting of, and accustomed to, the notion of external independent financial audits, which have become the norm throughout the world. I believe that a similar approach now needs to be followed in relation to cybersecurity. My suggestion is that we should undertake cyber audits—perhaps as part of financial audits, or perhaps separately; it does not really matter. Those audits could be based on standards that could be evolved by industry, rather than by government, because government legislation never manages to keep up with the astonishing pace of technological change. These cyber audits should include external stress tests of a company’s cybersecurity in areas such as email, and possibly even in relation to a company’s products.
I think the entire House knows that, in 2013, the Target chain of 1,800 stores in the United States of America was hacked by people who broke into its air conditioning system, which was supplied by a third party. Everybody knows about last autumn’s botnet attack by rogue webcams. So if we did this and went for cyber audits, we could gradually begin to address the issue of cybersecurity, so that over time no longer would it create quite the existential threat that it does now. It would need to start on a voluntary basis and be driven by business, not by government, but, in time, I believe it would spread internationally, so that the United Kingdom would not be disadvantaged in competitive terms. It would also ensure that the United Kingdom was in the vanguard of global best practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I expected more people to be inspired by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and to join in the debate. I am rising to give my support to Amendments 105 and 106 and to thank the noble Lords, Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Carlile, for highlighting this simple failure in company policy, which can lead to much bigger dangers and threats. As the noble Lord said, it can have commercial implications, personal privacy implications and, ultimately, national security implications. While we all have a part to play setting the highest standards of data protection, it is true that all too often we put the focus on national Governments without recognising the equal responsibilities of the private sector and private companies to play their part. This is particularly vital, given the number of private sector organisations which access data for government contract work. However, it also extends into other realms of commercial activity, such as commercial personal profiling, in which companies build vast data banks of our shopping habits, our friends, our movements—literally, where we are moving around in cities and towns—and our vulnerabilities, all of which have huge value both in their own hands and in the hands of cyber-thieves. These are issues which we have also flagged up in other amendments tabled today, and we have tried to build in more safeguards. My noble friend Lord Collins has said that we believe that individuals should have the right to know what information is being held about them, for example. They should have the right to be able to withdraw permission for the data to be held, and they should have the right to know immediately if a data breach has taken place.
We welcome the amendments, which would begin to address some of our concerns, by putting a straightforward obligation on companies to prepare a cybersecurity report each year, detailing the measures being taken to ensure that data are being kept safely. It is a simple ask, and it should not really be necessary, but the all too frequent security breaches taking place underline why a legal requirement has to be imposed. An Institute of Directors report last year showed that companies tend to keep quiet when there has been a security breach. As a result, there are no accurate figures on the extent of this crime, or the extent to which companies are being held to ransom. A survey of business leaders found that only half had a formal strategy in place to protect themselves and just 20% held insurance against an attack. Yet we also know that companies are also losing confidence in their encryption systems, their staff capabilities and awareness and the ability of their software to withstand a deliberate assault.
This is a huge issue. Of course, we have a vested interest in sorting this out, as often it is our personal data which are being stolen. But on a wider sphere it impacts on everything from company finances to sensitive market data and research and development. So we very much welcome the initiative set out in these amendments, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, that they are helpful. In itself, they will not completely solve the problem, but they represent another small step in getting companies to act responsibly in managing the data that they hold.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, Part 5 of the Bill requires public authorities and specified persons to specify and meet specific legislative conditions and controls on the handling of personal information. As I have said on a number of occasions this evening, these provisions will be underpinned by codes of practice setting out data security requirements, including cybersecurity. A body that fails to meet these could be prevented from using the data-sharing powers. That is the context in which I turn to Amendments 105 and 106.
Amendment 105 would require all but the smallest of companies to conduct audits on their cybersecurity and to report annually on it and their data protection measures. Clearly, the Government recognise that effective cybersecurity risk management is important to the success of the economy and, indeed, to ensuring the safety and integrity of private citizens’ data. The Government conducted the Cyber Security Regulation and Incentives Review in 2016 to consider whether we need additional regulation or incentives to boost cyber risk management in the wider economy and it showed strong justification for regulation to secure personal data.
The Government will seek to improve cyber risk management through our implementation of the EU general data protection regulation in May 2018. Its requirement to report breaches to the Information Commissioner and individuals affected, and the fines that can be issued under it, will represent a significant improvement. These will be supplemented by a number of measures to more clearly link data protection with cybersecurity, including through closer working of the Information Commissioner and the National Cyber Security Centre. However, we will not seek to pursue further general cybersecurity legislation for the wider economy as would be required by Amendment 105.
We believe that mandating the inclusion of cyber risk information in annual reports, or the introduction of legal provisions for cyber audit, is unlikely to be an effective way of encouraging large-scale change in cyber risk management. Instead, the National Cyber Security Centre plans to work with stakeholders to develop guidance for investors. The long-term aim of the organisation is to include cybersecurity in the guidance it provides to businesses on the kind of information it wants to see in an annual report, and in the reports it provides to investors each year on every listed company.
Amendment 106 is very broad in its aims and, as such, could have unintended consequences for the diverse range of grants that the Government fund each year. The supporting audit and insurance regime would be costly and challenging to enforce given the diversity of grant recipients, including those from voluntary and research communities. Furthermore, this amendment is unnecessary as many of these checks are in place as a matter of routine. The level of cybersecurity risk in grants will continue to be monitored and consideration given to how recently launched grant standards could be used to strengthen guidance in this area. This provides a far more flexible and proportionate solution than legislation.
With respect to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 106, the Government are already taking tangible steps to reduce the level of cybersecurity risk in their supply chain. As of October 2014, suppliers of central government contracts that involve the handling of personal data or the supply of IT products and services must demonstrate they have met the technical requirements set out as part of either the government-owned Cyber Essentials scheme or a suitable equivalent. The scheme was developed jointly with GCHQ and industry to support organisations of all sizes and across all sectors in getting a good, basic level of online security in place. In response to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot I would observe that, as of the end of December 2016, nearly 5,500 certificates had been issued under the scheme, and we have a strategy in place to significantly increase the adoption of the scheme over the coming year. With that explanation, I hope my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his comments. From what he says I suspect that the Government are not quite there yet. However, I hope that my amendments will help to encourage them along a path of some form of regulation in this area. I suspect that the arguments my noble and learned friend used were similar to those that were first used when financial audit was suggested. However, I am grateful for what he has said. I am also particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for what she said and for the gracious way in which she said it. However, my amendments were aimed not so much at government as at business. I suspect that this will be part of a long-term campaign, so, with those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) a devolved Welsh authority as defined by section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or( ) a person providing services to a devolved Welsh authority as defined by that section.”
“( ) References in this Chapter to people living in water poverty are to be construed in accordance with section (Disclosure of information to water and sewerage undertakers) (5).”
Lord Clement-Jones
“(a) the authority or civil registration official to whom it is disclosed (the “recipient”) requires the information to enable the recipient to exercise one or more of the recipient’s functions, and(b) the data subjects whose information is being disclosed have given valid consent under data protection legislation.”
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendment 116.
This issue is extremely straightforward. My remarks may anticipate some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will make in due course on the clause stand part question, for which we have considerable sympathy. However, we on these Benches and many others outside the House are deeply concerned that Chapter 2 of Part 5 contains no safeguards against bulk copying of civil registration data. We accept the case for a power to disclose civil registration information where an individual has consented. A citizen should, of course, be able to choose to let the registrar inform other bodies of changes. However, new Section 19AA in Clause 39(2) appears to remove any limit to copying registration data in bulk. As regards the draft civil registration code of practice, there appears to be no explicit limit on that sharing of data in bulk, and certainly no requirement for individual consent. Therefore, the essence of this amendment is quite simply to require that there should be express consent of the data subject.
As regards Amendment 116, approximately 1.3 million births and deaths are registered each year under legislation dating back to 1953, which consolidated provisions going back to the start of civil registration in 1837. In 2009, a system was introduced to allow registrars to register births and deaths electronically but it is the hard copy which this generates which is the legal copy that will be used to issue the certificates. Registrars also have to use the electronic system to submit an electronic copy of each event to the superintendent registrar. Primary legislation is required to make the electronic copy the legal copy and to remove the need for paper altogether, although individuals could still order hard-copy certificates should they so choose.
It has been estimated that such a move would save the local registration service and the Home Office around £2.5 million a year, primarily through removing the routine creation of registers containing loose-leaf, watermarked registration documents. Local authorities currently have to pay to store hard copies of all documents, so the change would reduce future storage costs. Provided that sufficient checks are in place, electronic documents are more secure than paper ones, which is particularly important when loose-leaf documents are being moved.
I hope that I have made the case for this amendment, which is very much supported by many in this field, and I hope that the Minister will look favourably on it. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, my opposition to Clause 39 standing part of the Bill forms part of this group. I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just said. I come to this from a slightly different angle but the conversation goes round and round in a circle, and here we are trying to introduce protections again.
I tabled my opposition to the clause for probing reasons. I wonder whether it is possible to have examples of when and why a civil registration authority would disclose information. The definition in new Section 19AA(6)(e), introduced in Clause 39, lists as civil registration officials those local authority classifications which also appear as specified public authorities. Do the disclosure powers mean therefore that a civil registration official in, for example, my home county of Leicestershire may disclose information to other personnel employed within the county council, or do they empower him to disclose information to any or all of the other specified public authorities? From my reading of the subsection, that is not quite clear.
Would the regulations be used to divulge information specific to a person or perhaps a family, or could they ever cover everything registered at a particular time or relating to a particular location? For example, why would the NHS have an interest in receiving such information?
Could this chapter result in a large-scale information exchange between civil registration officials and public authorities using the internet? If so, how will such data be protected both in transit and at the receiving end? Do all public authorities use the same methods to guard against data theft and hacking? I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may ask a couple of questions which arise from the fact sheet on this issue. On civil registration, it says:
“The Bill establishes a framework, with appropriate safeguards, to share bulk registration information where there is a clear and compelling need”.
I wonder whether the Minister can help the Committee in understanding where that is translated into the Bill. The fact sheet also says:
“There are no intentions to share data with the private sector or for data to be used for any commercial purposes”.
It then goes on to say that,
“the powers would not permit this”.
However, I am sure that the Minister will understand my querying the words “no intentions”, because they suggest that there could be a change, and possibly one with which Parliament is not hugely involved. I am going to assume that the points made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee are in the rather large pile of items that it raised and which the Government will reply to before Report, so I am referring to that only in passing, but it would be very helpful to understand how the points in the fact sheet, which is where many people would start, move over into the legislation.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the proposals in Chapter 2 of Part 5, which are being addressed here, will ensure that citizens are able to access future—can I have a moment to sort out my own speaking notes?
Lord Maxton (Lab)
While the Minister is doing that, can I ask whether this amendment covers Scotland? He is replying as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. Registration of births, deaths and marriages was not introduced in Scotland until 1855 rather than 1837—I think—so does this amendment cover Scotland?
Lord Keen of Elie
It does not extend to Scotland. It is a provision pertaining to England and Wales. I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving me time to find my place in my notes. It is greatly appreciated.
As I said, the proposals in Chapter 2 of Part 5 will ensure that citizens are able to access future government digital services efficiently and securely, while removing the current reliance on paper certificates. I will address the two amendments first before addressing the clause stand part aspect of this debate.
Amendment 113 would add a requirement for a civil registration official to be satisfied that the information is required by a recipient to fulfil one or more of their functions before disclosing data and also seeks to add a requirement that an individual must have given valid consent under data protection legislation prior to any disclosure of their personal data. With respect, this amendment is unnecessary because disclosure of personal data under these clauses will already be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act. To require explicit consent in all cases would exceed the requirements of the Data Protection Act and the purpose of this clause. Disclosure will take place without consent only if to do so would be consistent with the Data Protection Act, which governs fair disclosure. Examples of how the powers would be exercised in practice include allowing registration officials to disclose information within and across local authority boundaries in order to safeguard children. Being able to share information will ensure that children are known to the local authorities in which they reside and action can be taken to address any needs of the child or the parent. That is what lies behind this matter.
Amendment 116 seeks to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to introduce an electronic register for the registration of births and deaths. However, the proposed amendment to Section 25 of the 1953 Act as currently drafted does not go far enough. The legislation which provides for the registration of births and deaths is based on legislation in place in 1836—or 1837—and very little has changed to the process of registering births and deaths since then. The Act would need more amendment in order to introduce an electronic register. Moving to an electronic register would remove the requirement for hard-copy registers and the electronic register of births and deaths would be the legal record instead of the paper registers. It is certainly an area of reform that the Government are keen to take forward. However, we need more time. I reassure noble Lords that the Government will look in more detail at what changes need to be made to the Act in order to bring in this change and we will consider legislating in due course. We recognise the benefits that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested could be achieved once that entire process is completed. In light of those points, I hope that the noble Lord will agree not to press that amendment.
I turn to my noble friend Lady Byford and her opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill. Unless there is a specific statutory gateway, information from the records of births, marriages, civil partnerships and deaths may not be disclosed by registration officials other than in the form of a certified copy of an entry, such as a birth or death certificate, on payment of the statutory fee. As I have indicated, the system is outdated and based on paper processes from the 19th century. This clause introduces new data-sharing powers that allow registration officials to share data from birth, death, marriage and civil partnership records with public authorities for the purposes of fulfilling their functions. However, only the minimum amount of data will be provided to enable the public authority to fulfil the function.
My noble friend asked for examples of the benefits of sharing such registration data. Being able to share data about deaths with local authorities would assist in combating housing tenancy fraud. The National Fraud Authority estimates that housing tenancy fraud costs local authorities £845 million each year. An example of this is when someone continues to live in a property following the death of the tenant even when they have no right to do so. The sharing of birth data within the local authority would assist social services, for example, if they wanted to engage with one of the parents in the interests of a child. Sharing marriage data would help to target those living together if there were a fraudulent claim to be single for the purposes of claiming benefits. Sharing death data within local authorities would help them to recover medical equipment following the death of an individual.
There are many examples where such data sharing would be of assistance. It paves the way for citizens to access government services more conveniently, efficiently and securely, for example, by removing the current reliance on paper certificates to access services. This will provide more flexibility and will modernise how government services are delivered. An example is where registration officials will be able to share data on births that have occurred in one district, but where those concerned live in a neighbouring district with no hospital. This would allow local authorities more accurately to plan the provision of health care, school planning and other local services. Being able to share death data across boundaries will also help to prevent unwanted mail being sent to the family of a deceased person.
Registration officials will be able to share registration data only with the public authorities defined in new Section 19AB of the Registration Service Act 1953. Any data sharing will of course be carried out strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act. The sharing of registration data will be underpinned by a statutory code of practice as required by Section 19C. One of the requirements in the code will be that the Registrar-General must personally approve any request for the sharing of large amounts of data.
Before data are shared, the code of practice requires privacy impact assessments and data-sharing agreements to be drawn up and agreed with public authorities to include such things as how data are to be used, stored and retained. Data will be able to be used only for the purpose they have been provided and retained only for as long as necessary. Data-sharing agreements will forbid the creation of a database or the linking of registration data in any way. Any breach would be reported to the Information Commissioner, who has the power to impose penalties where it is appropriate to do so. I hope that that deals with the fears expressed about the bulk use of such registration data.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister has dealt with the questions raised by my noble friend.
Lord Keen of Elie
I apologise for omitting to respond to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, by reference to the fact sheet. Rather than poring over the provisions of the Bill, I will undertake to write to her pointing out the cross-reference between the terms of the fact sheet and the relevant provisions in the Bill. I will place a copy of that letter in the Library.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, but I am a little bit baffled. Here we are—and I am talking here particularly with reference to Amendment 116—discussing the Digital Economy Bill. It should be doing what it says on the tin. I put forward, in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott, who is the inspiration behind the amendment, something that would make sure that it was the electronic copy that was the legal copy. Here is the Minister saying—and I do not think I have ever had a Minister say this to me—that the amendment does not go far enough. That is a very joyous response, but on the other hand he wants more time and “it will all happen in due course”. This is the Digital Economy Bill: what other opportunity are we going to have to ensure that our Registrar-General and so on—the General Register Office and local authorities—are under a legal obligation to hold electronic copies rather than the old, steam-driven paper copies? We have been doing this since 1837 or 1836, as we heard earlier. Is it not about time that we changed our practices, and is it not possible that we have been cooking up an amendment over the last 50 years that might suit the book and be able to appear on Report? That is my response on Amendment 116.
My response on Amendment 113 is a little bit dustier. I have read the code of practice, and I accept the Minister’s assurances; throughout this process he has given a lot of assurances about the impact of the Data Protection Act. There is no doubt about that: either explicit consent or, where no explicit consent is given, it is in accordance with the Data Protection Act and so on. There are some very worthy purposes in terms of data sharing: safeguarding children was an absolutely splendid example for the Minister to produce, and he produced some very good examples to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as well. Of course, there are some very good examples, but the code of practice is very opaque in that respect. It really does not get into any of that kind of worthy purpose: it simply talks about disclosing in accordance with the Data Protection Act. I looked through when the Minister was talking to see whether it was the Registrar-General who was the one person who was going to authorise disclosure, and it seemed to me that there were an awful lot more people who were authorised to disclose than simply one person.
There is something defective about these codes of practice. They seem to be far too bland and they do not give the public the reassurance that they should. We have talked about public trust right across the Committee, and the fact is that the reason why so many amendments have come forward from a variety of different sources to this part of the Bill is precisely that lack of trust. I suggest that the Minister and his colleagues look again at whether these codes of practice are doing their job.
That is another reason why, at the end of the day, these codes of practice should be approved by Parliament. That has also been a running theme of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which had it absolutely right in every single chapter that it dealt with. These codes of practice should be approved by Parliament. Otherwise, I do not believe that the Government are going to build that public trust in this data sharing, which is absolutely essential. The Minister should look again at that aspect, but in the meantime, having given the Minister a hard time at this time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Data sharing for the purpose of supporting better debt management
In addition to the purposes set out in section 41(3), information about debt may be shared by specified persons under this Chapter for the purpose of helping individuals to manage their debts, including by provision of a breathing space.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, in an idle moment, a moment of complete frivolity, I looked up GOV.UK to check facts—I thought that would be a useful contribution to the debate. The date we have all been searching for is 1837: the General Register Office is part of Her Majesty’s Passport Office and contains records dating back to 1837. I thought that would be useful.
I beg to move Amendment 117A in my name. This stems from my period of service as chairman of a wonderful charity called StepChange, which deals with individual debt owed by ordinary people. In the time I was there—I resigned about two years ago—we had about 600,000 people a year contacting the telephone helpline or going online to try to seek solutions to their debt problems, so it is a very significant problem in British society and something we must take a great deal of care about. Most people who came to us were struggling with multiple debts; in other words, they owed money to a variety of different sources, ranging from local authorities, mobile phone companies, debt collection agencies, Revenue & Customs, payday lenders, utility companies and catalogue lenders—there is a very large number of them.
A median client would be aged about 45, female and owing about £20,000 to eight different creditors, so it is a significant problem that people get into. Within that, with a tremendous requirement now for debt advice, with lots of people struggling with debt, one worrying trend has been how bad central and local government have been in dealing with people, particularly those with multiple debts. A recent survey of about 1,000 StepChange clients found widespread aggressive enforcement from local authorities even when people were asking their authority for help. Clients were more than twice as likely to be threatened with court action or bailiffs than to be offered an affordable payment option. This is despite guidance being issued by central government about how debts should be treated.
Of course, what happens when people face strong demands, very often from central or local government, is that they tend to go to people who can lend them money quickly, probably from an existing credit line, almost certainly, until recently—but even today it is still happening—taking out a payday loan. They try to borrow more to try to pay back original debts and get themselves into a worse situation than they were before. The same survey asked clients to rate what their creditors had done to them and whether they treated them fairly or unfairly. I am afraid to say that public sector creditors came out very badly, occupying three of the top six places in the unfair treatment table. It is interesting to note that HMRC, for instance, scored no better than payday lenders, which the Government, through the FCA, have spent a lot of time trying to sort out over recent years.
That is the background of our concern. We welcome the provisions in the Bill to think again about how debts owed to the public sector are collected. In that light, these amendments are put forward for suggestion, they are probing amendments at this stage, and I hope that they will elicit a response, because it is not just StepChange, the debt charity, that has been concerned about this. Citizens Advice has also raised concern about public sector debt collection practices, finding that public sector creditors are,
“mostly out of step with financial services and utilities companies when it comes to setting affordable repayment rates, and that our clients can suffer detriment when public bodies have uncoordinated and inconsistent approaches to debt collections ... central government debt collection lags behind the higher standards expected of other creditors”.
This is focused on individuals who have problems with their debts, but of course there is a wider cost to society as a whole which, through relationship breakdown, homelessness and difficulties with maintaining concentration at work, et cetera, has been estimated at about £8 billion a year. The Bill contains clauses that relate to this and they seem to suggest that central government as a whole—but in this case HMRC—are thinking about how the data-sharing powers that are coming should be used to allow them to collect several debts at once, but also to do it in a slightly different way. I hope that is the case. We are back with our old friend, the code of practice, because what is said in the code of practice will determine whether this will work.
I have, then, four things I invite Ministers to respond to. First, Clause 45 is limited to departments that seek data-sharing powers and says only that they should “have regard to” the code of practice. This has, I think, been picked up in other amendments that we have considered today. It would be good if the code of practice were also embedded in a much stronger statutory provision, to give it real bite. We have seen examples of guidance—I mentioned one involving central government issuing guidance on council tax collection methods—but such guidance does not work, because it is non-binding and only advisory. If there is a code, it should be embedded in the statute and people affected by it should be able to refer back to it to make sure that it works properly.
Secondly, the public body itself must believe that this is the way in which it needs to operate. Within the amendments are a range of issues that central government bodies might pick up that would match the best practice in utilities, banks, credit cards and store cards—all of which have been through the cycle of trying to get money out of individuals who owe them and other people money, and have recognised that you have to deal with people with multiple debts in a completely different way from those who just owe money directly. That is gradually changing the way people operate. There is further to go, but it is a lesson that should be learned. I hope that the codes can be adapted to reflect that.
Thirdly—this may be too much of an ask, but it should be recognised—this Bill applies only to public bodies, and their creditors, when they are seeking to use the data-sharing powers. The problem is, of course, wider than the data-sharing powers. Problems with central and local government debt collections are widespread: practices need to be reformed and this is not likely to relate only to places where data sharing is used. The Government should think ahead about this and try to set out an understanding for all their agencies that poor debt-collection practices can harm the rate at which they get their money back and the time it takes, and it will also harm the financially vulnerable people. Taking account of that across all their practices would be a very good thing.
These amendments, therefore, try to raise those points, but there is one other thing that the Government should try to do, which is in the first amendment. It is to take a lesson from Scotland—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord from Scotland will wish to pick this up and think harder about it—where, when you have a private or a public debt and seek guidance from the state agency that operates that scheme, you are given statutory protection from excess charges and your interest rates are frozen, providing you stick to your debt repayment plan. That means that people get a breathing space, time to organise their finances, think about their budgets and work out what they are going to do, without the terrible pressure from those who are owed money to start repaying it. It is only when all those issues have been brought together, and an agreement reached between the creditors and the agency, that repayment begins. That has a very much higher rate of success than any other scheme. England lags way behind on this, and it would be no skin off the Treasury’s nose if it took a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book and brought in their procedures—with a statutory breathing space that gave some hope to people who want to repay their debts but cannot do so because the practices are not as good.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that this is a significant issue, and I understand that this is a probing amendment to allow us to consider some of the wider issues that he has touched on in the debate.
Amendment 117A seeks to include in the Bill an additional purpose: to enable debt information to be shared under the powers provided by Clause 41. It seeks to state explicitly that debt data can be disclosed,
“for the purpose of helping individuals to manage their debts”.
There is also a reference to the breathing space, and I will come back to that point in a moment in response to the questions posed by the noble Lord.
In the first instance, we would venture that the amendment is not necessary. The provisions as drafted enable information to be shared,
“for the purposes of the taking of action in connection with debt owed to”,
a public authority or the Crown. This includes but is not limited to, for example, identifying or collecting debt. The provision is sufficiently broad to enable sharing for the purpose set out in this amendment. That is the position of the Government. The Government are considering the recommendations that have been made following work to look into the merits of introducing a breathing space for customers, which we are aware is available in other jurisdictions. While the Government are considering these recommendations, it would be premature to incorporate a reference to this initiative in the Bill at this time. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the matter is being looked at.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister very much for his considered response. I am grateful to him for that. The breathing space proposal has been around for some time, so I was hoping to get a bit of an edge on it but we will clearly have to wait and see. It would provide a very big step forward for how public debts are organised. As I said, how the code of practice is framed is the main issue and I am grateful for the Minister’s thoughts that there might still be opportunities to influence it. What was said today might do that trick but we will certainly look at it carefully. With that, I would like to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
(a) is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or(b) is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (8)(b) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) which is a protected disclosure for any of the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (SI 1996/1919 (NI 16)),( ) consisting of the publication of information for the purposes of journalism, where the publication of the information is in the public interest,”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
(a) is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or(b) is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) a devolved Welsh authority as defined by section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or( ) a person providing services to a devolved Welsh authority as defined by that section.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
(a) is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or(b) is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.”
“( ) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (8)(b) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) which is a protected disclosure for any of the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (SI 1996/1919 (NI 16)),( ) consisting of the publication of information for the purposes of journalism, where the publication of the information is in the public interest,”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
(a) is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or(b) is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) a devolved Welsh authority as defined by section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or( ) a person providing services to a devolved Welsh authority as defined by that section.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) Information may be disclosed under subsection (5)(b)—(a) only with the consent of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, if it is information to which section 60 (2) applies;(b) only with the consent of the Welsh Revenue Authority, if it is information to which section (Information disclosed by the Welsh Revenue Authority)(5) applies;(c) only with the consent of Revenue Scotland, if it is information to which section (Information disclosed by Revenue Scotland)(5) applies.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) any person (including the public authority) who is involved in processing the information for disclosure under subsection (1);”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, these amendments apply to the research power, and there is an additional amendment which applies to the statistics power. Together, they add clarity and strength to the set of robust safeguards that have been developed to facilitate the processing and safe disclosure of personal information provided by public authorities for research purposes. To encourage greater use of publicly held data for research in the public interest, it is important that everyone concerned can have confidence that personal information is appropriately protected, while at the same time researchers are able to interrogate the information to produce research findings that further the public interest. These amendments further help strike that balance.
The amendments fall into four categories. First, Amendment 155, to Clause 57(9), makes clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that a public authority that processes another public authority’s personal information must be accredited to do so, as well as to process its own information.
Secondly, Amendments 159 to 180 and Amendment 191 correct defects in the drafting of Clauses 59 and 60. The defect in each clause prevents persons who receive processed information from processors under Clause 57(1) disclosing that information at all if that information meets the wide definition in Clause 57(12), whereas it was always intended that researchers would be able to disclose the information that they receive under the power to other researchers for the purposes of peer review. The amendments also strengthen the unlawful disclosure provisions by adding a new offence which applies to disclosure of a defined category of personal information by a person who has received processed information under Clause 57(1). The information that is protected is consistent with Section 39 of the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007. The amendments have been drafted in a way that will enable researchers to submit their findings for peer review and for publication in a similar way to current practice under that Act. These amendments have been developed with the assistance of the UK Statistics Authority, which has considerable expertise in this area.
Thirdly, Amendments 183 to 189 and Amendments 192 to 195 tidy up a drafting error by which the code of practice currently applies to the disclosure, holding or use of both personal information and information that is not, or never has been, personal. To apply the code or any other safeguards in this power to information that does not identify or risk identifying individuals would be unnecessarily bureaucratic.
Finally, Amendment 210 to new Section 53A supports devolved statistics by giving the UK Statistics Authority a mechanism to share information with its statistical counterparts in the devolved Administrations. In Northern Ireland, the principal statistical department is the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, or NISRA. Some of NISRA’s functions are held specifically by its parent department, the Department of Finance. Other statistical functions are held only by the Registrar-General for Northern Ireland. New Section 53A(2) does not currently list the Registrar-General for Northern Ireland as a devolved authority, meaning that UKSA cannot share information with NISRA relating to the Registrar-General’s statistical functions. This amendment resolves this difficulty by adding the Registrar-General for Northern Ireland to the definition of devolved authority in new Section 53A(2). I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (2)(b) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(A1) Subsection (A2) applies to personal information—(a) in which the identity of a particular person is specified or from which the identity of a particular person can be deduced, whether from the information itself or from that information taken together with any other published information, and(b) which is received by a person (“P”) under section 57 (1)(disclosure for research purposes).(A2) Personal information to which this subsection applies may not be disclosed—(a) by P, or(b) by any other person who has received it directly or indirectly from P.(A3) Subsection (A2) does not apply to a disclosure—(a) to a person by whom the research referred to in section 57(1) is being or is to be carried out, or(b) by a person by whom such research is being or has been carried out—(i) for the purposes of enabling anything that is to be published as a result of the research to be reviewed before publication, and (ii) to a person who is accredited under section 62 as a person to whom such information may be disclosed for that purpose.”
“( ) Subsection (2) does not apply to a disclosure—(a) under section 57(1) or (5), or(b) of information previously disclosed under section 57(1), where the disclosure is made by—(i) the person to whom the information was disclosed under that provision, or(ii) any person who has received the information directly or indirectly from the person mentioned in sub-paragraph (i),(but subsection (A2) may apply to such a disclosure).”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) which is a protected disclosure for any of the purposes of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (SI 1996/1919 (NI 16)),( ) consisting of the publication of information for the purposes of journalism, where the publication of the information is in the public interest,”
(a) is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person, or(b) is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(A1) Subsection (A2) applies to personal information—(a) in which the identity of a particular person is specified or from which the identity of a particular person can be deduced, whether from the information itself or from that information taken together with any other published information, and(b) which—(i) is disclosed under section 57 (1)(disclosure for research purposes) by the Revenue and Customs, or(ii) is disclosed under section 57 (1) by a person other than the Revenue and Customs and is derived from information disclosed under section 57 (5) by the Revenue and Customs,and is received by a person (“P”) under section 57(1).(A2) Personal information to which this subsection applies may not be disclosed by P.(A3) Subsection (A2) does not apply to a disclosure—(a) to a person by whom the research referred to in section 57 (1) is being or is to be carried out, or(b) by a person by whom such research is being or has been carried out—(i) for the purposes of enabling anything that is to be published as a result of the research to be reviewed before publication, and(ii) to a person who is accredited under section 62 as a person to whom such information may be disclosed for that purpose.”
“( ) Subsection (2) does not apply to a disclosure under section 57(1).”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Information disclosed by the Welsh Revenue Authority
(1) Subsection (2) applies to personal information—(a) in which the identity of a particular person is specified or from which the identity of a particular person can be deduced, whether from the information itself or from that information taken together with any other published information, and(b) which—(i) is disclosed under section 57 (1)(disclosure for research purposes) by the Welsh Revenue Authority, or (ii) is disclosed under section 57 (1) by a person other than the Welsh Revenue Authority and is derived from information disclosed under section 57 (5) by the Welsh Revenue Authority,and is received by a person (“P”) under section 57(1).(2) Personal information to which this subsection applies may not be disclosed by P.(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a disclosure—(a) to a person by whom the research referred to in section 57 (1) is being or is to be carried out, or(b) by a person by whom such research is being or has been carried out—(i) for the purposes of enabling anything that is to be published as a result of the research to be reviewed before publication, and(ii) to a person who is accredited under section 62 as a person to whom such information may be disclosed for that purpose.(4) Subsection (5) applies to personal information which—(a) identifies a particular person, and(b) is disclosed by the Welsh Revenue Authority under section 57 (5)(disclosure for processing) and received by a person (“P”).(5) Personal information to which this subsection applies may not be disclosed—(a) by P, or(b) by any other person who has received it under section 57 (5).(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to a disclosure under section 57 (1).(7) Subsection (2) or (5) does not apply to a disclosure which is made with the consent of the Welsh Revenue Authority (which may be general or specific).(8) A person who contravenes subsection (2) or (5) is guilty of an offence.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (8) to prove that the person reasonably believed—(a) that the disclosure was lawful, or(b) that the information had already and lawfully been made available to the public.(10) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (8) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine, or to both;(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both.(11) In the application of subsection (10)(a) to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 the reference to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.”
“Information disclosed by Revenue Scotland
(1) Subsection (2) applies to personal information—(a) in which the identity of a particular person is specified or from which the identity of a particular person can be deduced, whether from the information itself or from that information taken together with any other published information, and(b) which—(i) is disclosed under section 57 (1)(disclosure for research purposes) by Revenue Scotland, or(ii) is disclosed under section 57 (1) by a person other than Revenue Scotland and is derived from information disclosed under section 57 (5) by Revenue Scotland,and is received by a person (“P”) under section 57(1). (2) Personal information to which this subsection applies may not be disclosed by P.(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a disclosure—(a) to a person by whom the research referred to in section 57 (1) is being or is to be carried out, or(b) by a person by whom such research is being or has been carried out—(i) for the purposes of enabling anything that is to be published as a result of the research to be reviewed before publication, and(ii) to a person who is accredited under section 62 as a person to whom such information may be disclosed for that purpose.(4) Subsection (5) applies to personal information which—(a) identifies a particular person, and(b) is disclosed by Revenue Scotland under section 57 (5)(disclosure for processing) and received by a person (“P”).(5) Personal information to which this subsection applies may not be disclosed—(a) by P, or(b) by any other person who has received it under section 57 (5).(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to a disclosure under section 57 (1).(7) Subsection (2) or (5) does not apply to a disclosure which is made with the consent of Revenue Scotland (which may be general or specific).(8) A person who contravenes subsection (2) or (5) is guilty of an offence.(9) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (8) to prove that the person reasonably believed—(a) that the disclosure was lawful, or(b) that the information had already and lawfully been made available to the public.(10) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (8) is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both;(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(ca) may accredit a person as a person to whom such information may be disclosed for the purposes of a review of the kind mentioned in section 59(A3)(b), 60(A3)(b), (Information disclosed by the Welsh Revenue Authority)(3)(b) or (Information disclosed by Revenue Scotland)(3)(b),”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
( ) a register of persons who are accredited under subsection (1)(ca).”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (9)(b) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
Baroness Byford
“(2) Subject to subsection (1) of this section and section 45E, the Board may, by notice in writing to a public authority to which this section applies, require the authority to disclose to the Board information which—(a) is held by the authority in connection with its functions, and(b) is specified, or is of a kind specified, in the notice.(3) A notice under subsection (2) may require information to be disclosed on more than one date specified in the notice within a period specified in the notice.(4) A notice under subsection (2) other than one within subsection (3) must specify the date by which or the period within which the information must be disclosed.(5) A notice under subsection (2) may specify the form or manner in which the information to which it relates must be disclosed.(6) A notice under subsection (2) may require the public authority to consult the Board before making changes to—(a) its processes for collecting, organising, storing or retrieving the information to which the notice relates, or(b) its processes for supplying such information to the Board.(7) The reference in subsection (6) to making changes to a process includes introducing or removing a process.(8) The Board may give a notice under subsection (2) only if the Board requires the information to which the notice relates to enable it to exercise one or more of its functions.(9) The Board must obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers before giving a notice under subsection (2) to a public authority which is a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998).(10) The Board must obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before giving a notice under subsection (2) to a public authority which is a Wales public authority as defined by section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006.(11) The Board must obtain the consent of the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland before giving a notice under subsection (2) to a public authority if—(a) the public authority exercises functions only as regards Northern Ireland, and(b) its functions are wholly or mainly functions which relate to transferred matters (within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998).(12) A public authority to which a notice under subsection (2) is given must comply with it. (13) But the public authority need not comply with the notice if compliance—(a) might prejudice national security,(b) would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998,(c) would be prohibited by Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, or(d) would contravene directly applicable EU legislation or any enactment to the extent that it implements EU legislation.”
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Willetts, who apologises that he could not be here tonight. I have the two other amendments in the same group. Clause 68 makes mandatory the provision of data by Crown bodies to the ONS for defined statistical research purposes. An alternative approach might be for an organisation such as the Information Commissioner’s Office to provide arbitration on contentious requests.
Clear insight into whether the Bill directs Crown bodies to share data from statistics is needed in Clause 68. At the Bill’s Committee stage in the House of Commons, where there was a long discussion on this, Chris Skidmore, Minister for the Constitution in the Cabinet Office, said it would be possible for a Crown body to refuse an ONS request for data and,
“where necessary, have their refusal put before Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, Digital Economy Public Bill Committee, 27/10/16; col. 379.]
The Royal Statistical Society’s primary objection to this is that it provides no subsequent mechanism for the ONS to secure access to the data. It is also unclear to it what the process means in practice, which part of the legislature will deal with that correspondence, what it is expected to do with it and what sanctions it can apply for non-disclosure. The RSS has been asking why this is in place and whether it is justified, especially as other countries, such as Canada, operate with less burdensome arrangements. I should say that I am very grateful to the Royal Statistical Society for its briefing, otherwise I would be really lost. The RSS says:
“Including the Minister’s contribution, we have heard two arguments thus far … The Minister explained the different treatments for Crown bodies and other public authorities as being due to conventions: ‘That way of working, set out in sections 45B and 45C, ensures consistency between how a Crown body interacts with another on the one hand, and how a Crown body interacts with a non-Crown body on the other’ … We have also been privy to a different, earlier argument that due to the indivisibility of the Crown, one Crown body cannot give directions to another”.
If we thought earlier discussions were difficult, I think it is getting even more so.
The briefing continues by saying that,
“we have sought and obtained legal advice, which suggests that Parliament could technically direct departments to do what it deems fit. The government’s position, although it is not unprecedented, appears politically or culturally based. It may be that the government has heard objections from some departments to a mandatory approach. We are aware that there could be reluctance on the part of some departments to share data generally, and with ONS and researchers in particular. However, problems of risk aversion to data sharing ought to be addressed without obstructing the proposed right for ONS to access data for statistical purposes, which has been more widely supported and called for, for example, by the Public Administration Select Committee (2013) and the Science and Technology Select Committee (2016), and in other reports described in the House of Commons Library’s analysis”.
There is much more material here but I shall not push the matter further. I hope I have given my noble friend enough to respond to.
My Amendments 208 and 209, which are linked to this, are much simpler and more direct as far as I am concerned, because I am not technically astute on the other topic. Large, well-known charities employ many people using many skills and who are occupied full-time in their jobs. Little charities rely on unpaid volunteers who may not have a wide range of skills and who use their free time to work purely for the charity. I have two examples in mind. The first is Freddie’s Wish, which commemorates a little boy who died in a car crash. His mother set up the charity to help local bereaved families and to raise money for the children’s hospital and the air ambulance. In two years it has raised over £50,000 and trained more than 100 volunteers in paediatric first aid.
The second example is Evelyn’s Gift, which has been a registered charity for less than a year although its founder and volunteers have been working for nearly four years. It is in memory of a seven year-old girl who died of respiratory illness. Its aims are to arrange CPR training and to continue her practice of doing little acts of kindness. The list of acts done in her name and in the name of people and the organisations that support them is inspiring. The charity employs no one and all the work is carried out by unpaid volunteers.
Organisations such as these have no resources to supply the Statistics Board with information. An unpaid voluntary worker would have to give time to filling in forms instead of doing the work he or she has signed up for and dearly wishes to do. It could be difficult to persuade anyone to donate even more time in this pursuit. A small charity with irregular income but making an important local contribution could well be destroyed by a fine levied under new Section 45F(3).
Most people nowadays have heard of charitable shoe boxes. These are sent, filled with practical gifts—hand-knitted hats, scarves and gloves, pens and paper, recycled soft toys, tennis balls and so on—to underprivileged children in Africa and eastern Europe, and, indeed, in our own country. Those who fill them spend their own money and devote much time to making up these boxes. The work is carried out throughout the year and each box going abroad to Africa costs at least £2.50 to transport in November and December. Villages, primary schools, care homes and religious groups donate goods, money, time and effort to reclaiming, recycling and packing huge quantities of otherwise unwanted items. They also raise funds for basic toiletries, small packs of sweets and things such as pens and paper, without which some children cannot go to school. I know of one village that last year sent 1,326 boxes to the central depot.
Who is to fill in the forms for the Statistics Board, and is that really necessary for these very small charities? The boxes come from all over the country. They must not contain liquids, chocolate or sweets dated for expiry before the end of March of the following year. Beyond this, there is no record of contents, value or hours worked. With such charities, my concern is that the figures available to the Statistics Board will be solely to do with the transport of the finished items. That would surely distort the results of any study by the board. I suggest that we should therefore exempt such charities from the Bill. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)
I must advise your Lordships that, if this amendment is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 200 to 202 because of pre-emption.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support this amendment. There seems to be something quite perverse in obstructing the access of the Statistics Board to datasets that are in the hands of other public bodies. That is a very simplified account, but it is a curious place in which to have an obstacle. I hope that the Minister can consider this clause very seriously.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Baronesses for their interest in this part of the Bill. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 68 gives the UK Statistics Authority the powers to access important data needed to produce official statistics to support decision-making.
On Amendment 199, new Section 45B gives UKSA a right of access to information held by Crown bodies. A Crown body must respond in writing to a formal notice issued by the UK Statistics Authority and explain any refusal to give the authority information. If the Crown body’s explanation is inadequate or it fails to respond or comply, the UK Statistics Authority may lay the request and any response before the relevant legislature. A Crown body must therefore either comply with the notice or explain its refusal in writing. Where the Statistics Authority puts that correspondence before Parliament, then Parliament can judge the body’s actions openly and transparently. We consider that this is the right approach, creating effective, proportionate accountability and transparency.
Of course, my noble friend Lady Byford would argue that the amendment is a more effective means of requiring a Crown body to give the Statistics Authority the information. We cannot accept that it is either necessary or desirable. The Statistics Authority is part of the Crown, as are government departments. As my noble friend anticipated, it would be extremely novel, and possibly unprecedented, to legislate to compel one part of the Crown to obey another. Even the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 excludes the Crown from being subject to enforcement measures such as prosecution, instead providing long-standing structures to help departments to work with each other administratively. In this context, new Section 45B strikes the right balance. I hope that explanation reassures my noble friend.
Baroness Byford
I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend for his response. I am unable to really comment properly on Amendment 199, because I would like my noble friend Lord Willetts to have a chance to read and reflect on the Minister’s response to that issue.
On my own two amendments, I thank him for his comments. One thing that has always troubled me with charities is that sometimes you have a small charity that has a large income, but at the other end you have a large charity with a very small income. I am not totally clear, but I shall read very carefully on whether the lay-down that we have at the moment on micro and small is correct for what I am trying to suggest the Government should think about. However, I thank the Minister for his full response, which I shall read carefully in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (3)(b) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
“( ) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (13)(c) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
“( ) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (9)(c) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
( ) the Registrar General for Northern Ireland.”
“( ) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (10)(c) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
“Creation of a digital system for lasting power of attorney
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a fully digital process to apply for and create a lasting power of attorney, and for the verification by appropriate bodies of attorneys appointed under this process.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular—(a) provide for the use of secure electronic signatures in place of any requirements for physical signatures;(b) use electronic online methods to verify the identify of donors and proposed attorneys, either in conjunction with or in place of electronic or physical signatures;(c) require at least one other person to be notified automatically when an application is made;(d) permit in-depth checking of selected applications; (e) require the involvement of a solicitor in the application process;(f) create an offence of knowingly or recklessly providing false information in relation to an application for a lasting power of attorney, subject to a maximum penalty on summary conviction of a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months;(g) provide for appropriate bodies to use secure online methods to verify the identity of an attorney or donor; and(h) cover both health and welfare lasting power of attorney, and property and financial affairs lasting power of attorney.(3) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords I declare my interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum, and in that role I have been working closely with the Office of the Public Guardian.
For some time the Public Guardian has wanted to move away from the wet signature requirement for the creation of lasting power of attorney for both health and welfare, and property and financial affairs decisions, as laid out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This amendment would allow that process to be purely electronic and carried out online, with the safeguards it outlines. A digital process should now be secure given the advances in technology since the original provision was made, and the amendment would simply allow the Secretary of State to make appropriate regulations rather than creating the process.
As the hour is late I am inclined to ask the Minister, if he has any reservations about this amendment and the powers it would give to the Secretary of State, to curtail the debate by meeting with me and the Public Guardian before Report. However, I am rather pre-empting the Minister’s decision. If he decides to accept my amendment, that would be just wonderful. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, in view of the hour, it occurs to me that it would be appropriate to give a lengthy and detailed analysis of powers of attorney, and, indeed, to take us back to the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 and the subsequent developments of the law. Nevertheless, and despite the enthusiasm from the Opposition Benches, I am perfectly happy to accept the kind invitation advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and to meet with her to explain the Government’s position on this matter. I would be obliged if she could at this stage withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, in light of the forthcoming meeting—which I am sure the Public Guardian will wish to join—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.