House of Commons
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 9 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
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
Work is the best route out of poverty, and the benefit cap has been successful in encouraging people into work. Since its introduction, almost 62% of households in Scotland have found work, reduced their housing benefit claim or no longer claim housing benefit at all after having their benefits capped.
Martyn Day
Does the Minister agree with paragraph 90 of the fiscal framework, which states:
“The Governments have also agreed that the UK government’s Benefit Cap will be adjusted to accommodate any additional benefit payments introduced by the Scottish Government.”?
Damian Green
Of course we agree with the fiscal framework—the Government drew it up, in conjunction with the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government already have extensive benefits powers if they wish to introduce them, but the fact that they do not is a matter for the hon. Gentleman to take up with his colleagues in that Government.
Peter Grant
Writing in today’s Daily Record, Scotland’s First Minister has commented that the Scottish Government have yet to receive “confirmation” from the UK Government that when we abolish the bedroom tax the benefit cap will not be applied. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to guarantee that there will be no clawback of social security funding when Scotland abolishes the hated bedroom tax?
Damian Green
I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), because it is for the Scottish Government to take these decisions. They have the power to give benefits, increase benefits and make supplementary payments beyond the benefits available throughout the UK. It is noteworthy that they fail to exercise those powers and Scottish National party Members come to this House to complain about benefits in Scotland, despite having the power to do something about it themselves.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I support the Government’s strategy in this area, but does the Secretary of State accept that those who support it have concerns about what might be happening, certainly in the short run, to families so affected? What research is he carrying out to make sure that those who can move into work do so and that those who cannot do so are looked at sympathetically?
Damian Green
The right hon. Gentleman makes a characteristically reasonable point, to which I make two responses. The first is that those who are put into hardship have available to them discretionary housing payments, which have been extensively used by local authorities throughout the country precisely to avoid the problem that he suggests. Secondly, on the other point he makes, some of the research we have done shows that households that have been capped are 41% more likely to go into work than similar, uncapped households. So the policy is very successful in encouraging people to get back to work, which of course is the best thing for them in the long run.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
During the passage of the Scotland Bill, UK Ministers gave me and others clear assurances that any income derived from new benefits or top-ups introduced by the Scottish Government using new powers would not simply be clawed back from claimants through the benefit cap or other forms of means-testing, and those commitments were reflected in the fiscal framework. Will the Secretary of State therefore give a cast-iron assurance that that is still the UK Government’s position?
Damian Green
The UK Government’s position has not changed at all and nor, so far, has the Scottish Government’s, which is that they are not prepared to take or exercise the powers that they have.
Dr Whiteford
With respect, that is just nonsense; the Scottish Government are working towards the already-published timetable. But there should be absolutely no ambiguity here, so will the Secretary of State now commit that he, his Ministers and his officials will engage positively with Scottish Ministers as they use those new powers to abolish the bedroom tax in Scotland?
Damian Green
I, along with both my Ministers and my officials, engage positively with the Scottish Government all the time. I know that because I go to the meetings, and I have engaged positively with them on this and all the other important issues that we have to discuss in this field.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
We have been seeking views on this through the “Work, Health and Disability” Green Paper. We are also investing £100 million in trialling voluntary employment initiatives to consider what works for this group, including embedding employment advisers within the NHS talking therapy services.
Charlie Elphicke
I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that local voluntary groups, such as the Talk It Out mental health group in my constituency, do invaluable work to help people to be work-ready, and that we must do more to support them?
Penny Mordaunt
I agree that voluntary organisations have huge insight and expertise that we can tap into, and I commend the work of Talk It Out in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are recruiting 200 community partners throughout the Jobcentre Plus network so that we can ensure we reach all those organisations and benefit from their huge experience and wisdom.
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend has hit on a theme of the Green Paper. Much work is going on in this area, not only for those with mental illness but for those with a learning disability. One health trial is currently looking at discounting business rates for employers with good mental health practice.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Government’s laudable aspiration to halve the disability employment gap is completely meaningless without a date being attached to it. What is the Minister’s latest assessment of how long it will take to halve that gap?
Penny Mordaunt
The target of halving the disability employment gap is at the same time both hugely ambitious and hugely underwhelming. We should be working to ensure that everyone can reach their full potential. I have asked the Department—the right hon. Gentleman’s office will have been supplied with this information—to look at the local need in all our constituencies. How many people with a learning disability do we need to ensure can get into work? How many people with particular conditions are we focused on? We need to focus on those numbers, not on some arbitrary formula that will change with all sorts of other factors. The labour market survey will still contain all the measures it has contained in the past, but if we are really to crack this issue we need to focus everyone locally on the local numbers.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I agree with the aim that the Minister has outlined, but in my constituency office the overwhelming issue, particularly for those with mental health conditions, is the assessment process for personal independence payments, which is causing individuals real distress and great worry about their future and their ability to support themselves. I welcome the work being done with local partners, because at the moment the system is not working. The sooner the Government realise that, the better.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We are clearly looking to reform the work capability assessment on employment and support allowance. That affords us some opportunities to look at the PIP assessment process, to which there have already been many improvements. If we can ensure that both those systems are sharing data properly, we should be able to reduce the burden on the claimant.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
The Access to Work programme is popular, and is just one of the Government’s schemes to provide support and financial assistance to employers. One way in which we are publicising that is through the Disability Confident scheme, which we relaunched last autumn. Around 4,000 organisations have now signed up to it, and it is one way of ensuring that employers really do understand the support that is there for them, as well as the huge talent and insight that this group of people can bring to their workforce.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Many people with mental health problems pay the bedroom tax. Three months ago, the Government lost three cases in the Supreme Court that had been brought by disabled people over the bedroom tax. How has the Department identified other disabled people who should not be paying that tax, and when will disabled people in Bermondsey and Old Southwark and across the country stop having to pay it?
Penny Mordaunt
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a discretionary fund that is administered at a local level. Many local authorities have not accessed the fund. The vast majority of people, including those who are disabled, are exempt from the scheme. If he has examples of cases where that is not happening, he should write to us and let us know.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
In addition to the community partners that we are recruiting to ensure that we have local networks plugged into our Jobcentre Plus scheme, we are also looking at opportunities for where that sector can increase the services that it already provides and derive an income from them. One such example is our one-stop-shop hub for employers, which can be a shop window for many of the organisations that already provide support to employers and that want to do more.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Minister say a little more about how ESA and PIP assessments for those with mental illnesses work? I have six cases where mandatory reconsideration letters are identical to the letters providing the original decision. I have four cases—she knows of one of them because she has written to me about it—where the wrong information, about other people, has been cut and pasted into the mandatory reconsideration letter.
Penny Mordaunt
Let me point out that only 3% of those decisions are overturned. The vast majority of the assessments are good. The hon. Lady should let me know if she has examples of where that is not the case. One thing I have done to ensure that we get more timely information about where things are going wrong and where standards are not being maintained is to establish a claimant user rep panel, which will go live in the next few weeks. It will be rolled out on a very large scale across the country. In the meantime, she should keep on flagging up the issues that she finds.
Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)
Perhaps the Minister could talk a little more about the ESA assessments for those with mental health conditions, with particular regard to regulations 29 and 35 of the Employment and Support Allowance Regulations 2008, as they are causing much distress to disabled people.
Penny Mordaunt
We are looking at the assessment process. A huge amount has already been done to ensure that assessors and those in our Jobcentre Plus networks have been trained to recognise the needs of people with a mental health condition and to ensure that what they are doing is fit for purpose. The Green Paper on work and health will provide us with the opportunity to re-evaluate entirely those assessment processes primarily for ESA, but it will also reveal some opportunities for PIP.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
People with mental health conditions and autism whom I met recently in Bristol told me of the difficulties they face getting into work. They also told me about the issues relating to PIP, work capability assessments and sanctions. Those in the ESA support group fear that the Green Paper spells out that they will be targeted next after cuts to people on the ESA work-related activity group in April. How does the Minister justify ESA WRAG cuts, cuts to employment support, jobcentre closures and the liberal use of sanctions as helping disabled people into work when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
Penny Mordaunt
We are doing more for that group of people, which is why, despite the hon. Lady’s request, I will not be pulling the personalised support package that will take effect in April.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
The number of young people in work has increased by 235,000 since 2010, and is up 38,000 in the past three months. Nearly nine in 10 young people are in education or work, and youth unemployment is the lowest it has been since 2005.
Michael Tomlinson
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. I warmly welcome the fact that the youth employment jobs figures are at near record levels. Will he join me in welcoming the work of the Dorset Young Chamber, which helps to match individual businesses in and around my constituency with particular schools and to bridge the gap between education and employment?
Damian Green
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the work of the Dorset Young Chamber. I have seen the great work that my local chamber of commerce, Kent Invicta, does in schools. My hon. Friend chairs the all-party parliamentary group for youth employment, so he will be pleased to know that the youth claimant count in his constituency has gone down by 74% since 2010 and by 7% in the past year alone.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
More young people are claiming benefits in Newcastle Central this year than they were last year, and the north-east has the overall highest unemployment rate in the country. Too many of our young people have to leave the region to find good jobs, so when will the Secretary of State make the northern powerhouse a reality for the north-east?
Damian Green
We are determined to make the northern powerhouse a reality. As the hon. Lady says, youth unemployment is higher in certain areas than it is in others, but I hope she recognises that youth unemployment as a whole has come down markedly in recent years in her region, as in all others. Some 86% of 16 to 24-year-olds are now in full-time study or work, which is a record high, and the employment rate for 16 to 24-year-olds who have left full-time education is up by 0.4 percentage points in the past year.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Apprenticeships are solid routes for young people to secure work. What work is the Secretary of State doing with his counterparts in the Department for Education to ensure that all our young people have access to apprenticeships?
Damian Green
We work closely with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that the Government meet their commitment to having 3 million new apprentices during this Parliament. We are on target for that. In particular, we wish to ensure that apprenticeships are available not only to young people leaving school for the first time, but throughout the age range so that we can make a reality of the phrase “lifelong learning.”
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
What would the Secretary of State say to areas such as mine, where youth unemployment has actually risen in the past month? Will he please look at working with colleagues in the northern powerhouse to ensure that the benefits of Government investment are shared across the north-west and north Wales as a whole?
Damian Green
I am happy to listen to the right hon. Gentleman’s latter point. One purpose of the northern powerhouse and, indeed—more widely—of the Government’s consultation on the industrial strategy is to ensure that the success of the economy is spread to all regions of the country. I am more than happy to talk to the right hon. Gentleman about any specific points he wants to make on his region.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
Almost 7.3 million eligible workers have been enrolled into a workplace pension because of automatic enrolment. This is an unseen revolution; the way people are now saving will lead to more freedom, more choice and more security for the pensioners of tomorrow.
Bob Blackman
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is quite clear that many people who would otherwise not save into a private pension will now have a pension for their futures, and that young people, who often do not save for a pension now, will have a secure future in retirement?
Damian Green
I agree with my hon. Friend, particularly on his point about young people. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has done some research showing that participation in auto-enrolment among those aged 22 to 29 increased from 28% in 2012 to 85% in 2016. That is a very impressive improvement.
Royston Smith
Auto-enrolment has been hugely successful. However, a number of people are still opting out. A business in my Southampton, Itchen constituency suggested that up to 50% of its staff may be opting out. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to encourage people to continue to save for their retirement in a workplace pension?
Damian Green
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that his example is an exception. When the Turner commission reported and suggested this kind of scheme in 2005, it estimated that about 25% of people would opt out, but the opt-out rate is about 10% at the moment. There is always more to do, as my hon. Friend’s example suggests, which is why we are currently conducting a review to ensure that such schemes are even better in the future in order to work for all kinds of individuals, particularly those in small businesses.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
The Library is not able to supply me with any evidence that tax relief on pension contributions—costing £30 billion a year or more—encourages savings. Can the Secretary of State supply me with such evidence?
Damian Green
I can supply the hon. Gentleman with evidence that we have transformed saving over the past few years. People have often said that young people in particular do not want to save, but the facts I have just put before the House suggest that that is no longer the case. If the hon. Gentleman is advocating taking away all tax relief for pensions, I would be interested in his ideas—as, I am sure, would his own Front Benchers.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Ministers have been clear on the need for transparency in the pensions industry, including in master trusts dealing with auto-enrolment. In his Second Reading speech on the Pension Schemes Bill, the Secretary of State spoke of it. In a speech to the TUC, the Pensions Minister said:
“We have to get transparency. It’s not an option to do nothing.”
On Report in the Lords, Lord Freud said:
“We want pension scheme members to have sight of all costs and charges”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 December 2016; Vol. 777, c. 1528.]
Despite those fine words, all the attempts to deliver on transparency in the Bill Committee were dismissed by the Government, so can the Minister tell the House what they mean by transparency in the pensions industry?
Damian Green
The Bill—I note the Labour party did not vote against it on Second or Third Reading, so the hon. Gentleman cannot have objected to it that strongly—actually set up a new system of regulation, particularly of master trusts, that deals with not just transparency but a whole range of aspects, so this relatively new form of financial body is now much better regulated than it was before. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed it—actually, he did welcome it.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
The Green Paper consultation, which concluded on 17 February, asked a range of questions about how we can better support people into employment and highlighted learning disabilities as an area for further work. We will bring forward shortly schemes to support this group in their ambitions.
James Berry
Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the work of the Balance community interest company in Surbiton, which provides employment support for people with learning difficulties? I urge her to raise awareness of organisations such as Balance and, indeed, of the Government’s own Access to Work scheme, so that everyone knows what support is available out there.
Penny Mordaunt
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the work of Balance CIC. This is a group of individuals we want to do much more for. We will be bringing forward a young person’s work experience scheme shortly, and we wish to open up apprenticeships, but more is needed in this area, and organisations such as Balance can help us do that work.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The disabled students allowance has been a great help to students with learning difficulties such as dyslexia in gaining the qualifications they need to enter the world of work. Will the Minister not accept that the £200 fee is acting as a real deterrent to the uptake of this allowance and that it is unfairly penalising students who need that extra help?
Penny Mordaunt
We are looking at a range of things we can do in particular to help young people with learning disabilities, with autism and with mental health conditions. They need more options available to them, and they need more financial support in some of those areas. I am happy to look at what the hon. Lady suggests if she would like to write to me with evidence that these things are happening.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Governments of all persuasions have tried and failed to shift the employability rate of those with learning disabilities from 6%. That rate is an absolute waste of the huge amounts of talent and enthusiasm that are out there. That is exactly why we brought forward plans to open up apprenticeships and to have a special disability apprenticeship scheme. Please would the Minister update the House on where we are with creating those opportunities?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the apprenticeship scheme. We wish to open up the opportunities such schemes bring to those with learning disabilities, and we are making good progress on that with the Department for Education, but we need to do other things as well. When we talk about people with learning disabilities, we are talking about a huge range of individuals. We have not done enough for those who are at the highest-need end of that spectrum, and I hope we will be able to do more shortly.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
I receive regular representations from disability organisations and hon. Members regarding personal independence payments. As I have previously stated, we want to do more to create real-time feedback across the whole country. We will shortly be introducing service user panels to feed directly back from claimants on PIP and employment and support allowance.
Sir David Amess
Unfortunately, I have to tell my hon. Friend that I am still receiving complaints from constituents about the procedures regarding personal independence payments, so what is she doing to improve the process, reduce delays and support people through what is often a traumatic assessment process?
Penny Mordaunt
The goal is clearly swift, accurate and admin-lite assessments. Good progress has already been made in many areas—for example, reducing the average time it takes for a claim from point of registration to decision by more than three quarters from over 40 weeks to 10 weeks as of October last year—but there is more to do. One reason we have set up the service user panels is that it is incredibly important to be aware that, while things may be generally going well, there are certain hotspot areas where they are not, and identifying those in real time is critical—but there are many other things in the PIP improvement plan as well.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Yet again, one of my constituents has been to see me about a PIP assessment that has led to her Motability vehicle being taken away from her. She is currently appealing, and I have written to the Minister about the case. What reassurance can she give me and my constituent that this vehicle, which she needs, will be returned to her?
Penny Mordaunt
There are 70,000 more people making use of the Motability scheme than there were in 2010. The hon. Lady will know that there are improvements that we want to make to the Motability scheme. We have been working very closely with that independent organisation; we are now attending its board meetings and are able to work much more strategically. I have spoken at length, so I will not repeat it, about the areas where we wish to see better customer service. We hope to be able to make some announcements shortly.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Minister make strong representations to the Ministry of Justice that it should reduce the length of time that unsuccessful claimants are having to wait for their tribunal, so that they can process their claim successfully?
Penny Mordaunt
We are concerned with all aspects of the claims process, whether for ESA or PIP. We want this to be swift and admin-lite, and we have some opportunities, which I have already outlined, to achieve both those things.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Last year, the Government announced that those with chronic progressive conditions would not be subjected to continual work capability assessments. Why are constituents of mine with progressive conditions like multiple sclerosis continually being called for reassessment?
Penny Mordaunt
If the hon. Lady has cases she wishes me to look at, she must write to me about them. We are currently still outlining the criteria for the scheme to be introduced, but in the meantime, as she will know, we do not wish to call people for reassessment who would be in that category, so if she has cases where that is happening, she must let me know.
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
At present, 65% of all claimants have their PIP appeal upheld by tribunal—an all-time high. It should be a source of huge embarrassment to the Government that, even after the introduction of mandatory reconsideration before appeal, the majority of claimants who go to tribunal win their case. How does the Minister justify forcing vulnerable claimants to navigate the complex and gruelling process that the appeal system demands, often with little or no support? Will she now get a grip and reform this clearly broken system?
Penny Mordaunt
I welcome the hon. Lady to her post. She is not correct: 6% of the caseload is overturned, but there are many things that we wish to do to ensure that that is improved. Some opportunities will come after the consultation in the Green Paper with the reforms that we want to make to this part of the system to improve it and reduce the administrative burden on those also claiming PIP.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
It is not meaningful to compare against an unchanged tax credits system, but the national living wage, help with childcare and the straightforward taper in universal credit all mean that people can earn more, and a higher income tax allowance means that they can keep more of it.
Mr Sharma
A single parent working full time on universal credit will be up to £3,000 worse off than someone in the same situation on tax credits, as a result of this Government’s cuts. Does the Minister accept that those cuts are creating an unjustified disparity in the in-work support received by people in similar circumstances?
Damian Hinds
Anybody who changes from tax credits to universal credit as a result of managed migration can get transitional protection. For those who are coming into it with a new claim, it is a wholly different system with a completely different support set, including much more child care support. There are various other reforms from which the individual to whom the hon. Gentleman refers would also benefit.
Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that universal credit, which now reaches almost a third of the unemployed people in my constituency, is a much simpler system and the first major new benefit introduced in my political lifetime that has not resulted in a whole string of correspondence from people with difficulties?
Damian Hinds
It is indeed a dramatic and critical reform for our welfare system. I will highlight just one statistic: for every 100 people who moved into work under the old jobseeker’s allowance system, 113 do so under universal credit.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last week, DWP informed Members of Parliament that our constituents would have to give specific and precise explicit consent if we are to help them with full universal credit claims with which they have difficulty. I think that that will significantly inhibit our ability to assist our constituents. Will the Minister reassure the House that measures will be put in place to ensure that MPs can support our constituents effectively?
Damian Hinds
Of course we want hon. Members to be able to support their constituents, but the universal credit full service system is different because the online account allows the user to access a greater breadth of their data. The claimant holds the key to those data, and implied consent cannot be assumed. A claimant can give their consent via their journal, and that is what has to be done to enable a Member to act on their behalf.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Currently, families have to wait at least six weeks to receive universal credit after they have made a claim, which is leading to some people being in rent arrears and at risk of eviction. Research by the Child Poverty Action Group and the Trussell Trust found that about 30% of food bank users were waiting for the outcome of a benefit claim. What urgent action will the Government take to cut the delay at the start of universal credit claims?
Damian Hinds
Universal credit, as the hon. Lady knows, is a monthly benefit, but benefit advances are available where people cannot make it through to the first pay day. The fundamental point is that universal credit is helping more people into work, and once they are there, it is helping more people progress in work, and that is what is putting down the better foundation for their future.
Margaret Greenwood
Many families on tax credits and universal credit will lose out when the two-child limit comes into force in April. The Institute for Fiscal Studies projects a 50% rise in child poverty by 2020—the biggest in a generation—and it says that a key reason will be the impact of tax and benefit changes on families with three or more children. Do the Government think that some children matter more than others?
Damian Hinds
The policy to which the hon. Lady refers relates to new cases. I remind her that relative poverty is down by 100,000 children since 2010.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
The Government are committed to providing free impartial guidance through Pension Wise to help people make informed and confident decisions about how they use their defined-contribution pension savings in retirement.
Mary Robinson
What further steps is the Department taking, working with other Departments, to ensure that protections are in place for those in receipt of their pensions who may be at risk of falling foul of financial scams in their retirement?
Richard Harrington
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question. She can be reassured that a cross-Government consultation on further measures to tackle pension scams closed very recently—on 13 February —and it included a proposal to ban all cold calling in relation to pensions. We will announce our next steps once we have considered the responses we have received to the consultation, but I assure her that we will take action as soon as possible.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
We have been mindful throughout of the impact on staff and customers. Analysis and local knowledge have informed the proposals, which are all subject to consultation with staff and, where appropriate, the public. A full equality impact assessment will be carried out.
Louise Haigh
Following the Minister’s advice, I went to see the regional manager of my jobcentres last week, but she had absolutely no information on the number of employment and support allowance or income support claimants that will be affected by the proposed closure in my constituency; the plans for outreach in relation to what will replace my jobcentre after its closure; the amount saved by that closure; the necessary spend on increased capacity at the alternative centre; or projections of footfall at the centre destined for closure. I hope that such work has been undertaken internally, so will the Minister commit to publishing all that information not only before a decision has to made, but preferably before the end of the consultation period?
Damian Hinds
First, ESA and IS claimants are not required regularly to attend the jobcentre in the same way that JSA claimants are. We want to look at outreach and other opportunities in working with partners. As the hon. Lady will know, the consultation closes on 28 February. On the overall approach for the city of Sheffield, this is about consolidating the amount of available space and using that space better to get a better deal for the taxpayer, while being able to provide enhanced services for customers. It will raise utilisation across Sheffield from 51% to 69%.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2010, there were three jobcentres in my constituency. The coalition closed one in 2012, and now the Minister’s Government want to close the remaining two. Just under 3,000 people—not an insignificant number—have to access the jobcentre in my constituency at least every two weeks Why did his Department not conduct and carry out the full equality impact assessment before the closure of the consultation?
Damian Hinds
The proposals will raise utilisation across the city of Liverpool from 66% to 95%, which will make better use of buildings. Where movement from one jobcentre to another involves travelling less than three miles or 20 minutes by public transport, we consider it is reasonable to ask people to make such a move.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
In “Improving Lives: The Work, Health and Disability Green Paper”, we asked about the barriers preventing employers from recruiting and retaining disabled people and people with health conditions. We will shortly bring forward measures to address those barriers.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I recently held an engagement event in Lowestoft in my constituency to consider the Green Paper. The conclusion reached was that the disability employment gap is best tackled with bespoke local solutions worked out with local employers. Will the Minister give this approach fair and full consideration as she assesses the feedback from the consultation?
Penny Mordaunt
First, I put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend and Members of all parties in the House who have held local consultation events. Doing so was incredibly important and has made this a very good consultation, but it is also vital in establishing and building such local networks. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the solutions have to be local ones, not least because healthcare is commissioned locally. I can give him reassurances that we will bear that in mind as we go forward.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery has heard compelling evidence about how people enslaved in the UK have post-traumatic stress disorder and similar serious disabilities as a result. Will the Minister commit to meeting the relevant Minister in the Home Office to look at practical ways in which those victims of exploitation can be supported into work and be enabled to work in companies?
Penny Mordaunt
The right hon. Lady raises an important point. I can give her assurances that both my office and that of the Minister for Employment are working very closely with the Home Office on precisely the group of individuals she mentions and other vulnerable people such as refugees. I am very happy to raise any points that she wants me to make.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I am holding a Disability Confident event in my constituency on 28 April. The Minister will be very welcome if she is able to find time in her busy schedule to join us. In the meantime, will she look at what incentives can be given to employers to give disabled people a chance to prove themselves and to show what they are capable of if they are just given that chance in the first place?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for holding a Disability Confident event. We are looking at what further support and, in some cases, incentives we can provide for employers. We need to raise the profile of the fact that these individuals have much to offer any business. We will be holding events in March in this place to enable all Members of all parties to become Disability Confident employers and to ask for their assistance in signing up 30 targeted organisations in their constituencies. I hope all Members will take that opportunity.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
This question is highly relevant to what Members have been saying. I am sure that the Minister will agree that to change attitudes towards disability in the workforce, we need more businesses to become role models in this area. In Taunton, sadly, very few businesses have signed up to the disability awareness register. Will the Minister join me in encouraging local businesses to attend a special event to be staged by Taunton jobcentre on 13 March to promote the Disability Confident initiative?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for what she is doing in her constituency to promote the scheme. It is important that employers realise not only what opportunities are presented by employing these people, but the support and advice that go alongside it. The more people who know about that, the closer we will be to achieving the goal of ensuring that every citizen in this country can reach their full potential.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
The proposals are subject to consultation with staff and, where appropriate, the public. Should they proceed, the Department will support customers through any change of jobcentre. Staff will continue to offer the same support and services to customers and to maintain the relationships they have built up over time.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Now that the Glasgow consultation is closed, can the Minister tell us the following: when will the consultation responses be published; when will the equality impact assessment be published; and when will the decision be announced? On the announcement, will he assure the House that it will not be slipped out in a press release or a written statement, but that he will make it from the Dispatch Box?
Damian Hinds
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the consultation on the jobcentres in Glasgow has closed. We are working through a number of responses and will do so within the timeframe. I anticipate making announcements in April.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I have met the 83 people who work at Vinovium House in my constituency—another office that is scheduled for closure. Will the Minister explain what the impact of the closure of that child maintenance back office will be and how it can possibly be efficient to close an office in one of the most low-rent towns in the entire nation?
Damian Hinds
The entire estates review has come about because a 20-year private finance initiative contract comes to an end at the end of March 2018. That has presented the opportunity—indeed, the requirement—to review almost the entire DWP estate. We are trying to consolidate it into less space to save money for the taxpayer and to do things more efficiently. We do not want the people who work in those places, particularly in back-of-house locations, to be made redundant. We are trying extremely hard to find other opportunities for them elsewhere in DWP or in the public sector.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
The UK labour market is the strongest it has been for years. Over the past year, the number of people in employment has increased by 302,000. The employment rate stands at a new record high of 74.6%. The unemployment rate remains at 4.8%—the lowest rate in over 10 years.
Seema Kennedy
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will agree that long-term unemployment is particularly damaging for a young person. What steps is his Department taking to ensure that no young person falls through the cracks?
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is right: long-term unemployment can significantly damage anyone, particularly young people. I welcome the recent employment statistics, which show that 3 million 16 to 24-year-olds are full-time students, and another 3 million have left full-time education and are working. Together they account for 86% of all young people in the UK, the joint highest on record. She is right that there is always more to do, which is why, in April, we are introducing the youth obligation to ensure that young people are fully supported as they progress into work and while they are at work.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
We are committed to ensuring that claimants receive high-quality, objective, fair and accurate assessments. The Department monitors assessment quality through independent audit. Assessments deemed unacceptable are returned to the provider for reworking. A range of measures, including provider improvement plans, address performance falling below expected standards.
Holly Lynch
My constituent Neville Cartwright is living with just one lung following a battle with lung cancer, yet he lost his Motability car when his PIP was cut last year. He began his appeal in June, but has still not had a tribunal hearing. Does the Minister agree that an eight-month wait to find out the result of an appeal is totally unacceptable?
Penny Mordaunt
I do agree with the hon. Lady, which is why we have been trying to work more strategically with Motability, thrashing through the issues I am very aware of on appeals and on matters such as when an individual leaves the country. We are looking to reduce the amount of time that appeals take and at what we can do with the running of the scheme so that the precise scenario she outlines does not happen.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
We are building on the success of the new enterprise allowance. From April 2017, eligibility will be extended to include universal credit claimants who are already self-employed.
Victoria Prentis
There are 40 new businesses in Banbury currently supported by the new enterprise allowance, with about 100 more going through the developmental stage. Can the Minister reassure us that the programme is not just there to set up new businesses, but to enable them to grow?
Damian Hinds
Absolutely. The 40 new businesses in Banbury are a great example of what the NEA can do. In phase 2, we are introducing additional features to continue to promote sustained success in self-employment, including extending the mentoring period and ensuring there is a pre-workshop to outline the responsibilities and realities of being self-employed.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Damian Green)
Today, we published our Green Paper on defined benefit pension schemes. The schemes provide an important source of income in the retirement plans of millions of people. The majority of the nearly 6,000 defined benefit pension schemes are run effectively. We are fortunate to have a robust and flexible system of pension protection in the UK. However, it is clear that experiences differ from scheme to scheme. Some employers are clearly struggling and the system may not be working optimally in all circumstances. The Green Paper is an opportunity to look at the schemes to ensure the system remains sustainable, while still ensuring members’ benefits are protected.
Justin Madders
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) on universal credit inquiries on behalf of constituents, does the Secretary of State not accept that putting in this extra hurdle is disadvantaging people who are in a very vulnerable situation and flies in the face of Information Commissioner guidance?
Damian Green
As my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment explained, the data are now held in a different way. They are entirely owned by the claimants, who can and should give any Member of Parliament permission to act on their behalf. With that permission, all of us can do our job, as we traditionally have, on behalf of our constituents.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
May I first praise the work of the all-party group on motor neurone disease, and the work of my hon. Friend as its vice-chair? Following the announcement, we are working to develop a set of criteria to switch off reassessments for people with the most severe health conditions or disabilities. We have sought feedback from stakeholders, including many motor neurone disease organisations. They will not be about a specific list of medical conditions; they will be based on a number of other factors, in particular how conditions are impacting on people.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
In April, the Government’s two-child policy will mean that a woman who has a third child after being raped will have to prove that fact if they are to get child tax support. At the same time, the Government are cutting widowed parent’s allowance by an average of £17,000 for each bereaved family. In 2015, that benefited 40,000 children who had lost at least one parent. Will the Secretary of State please think again about these punitive measures?
Damian Green
I do not agree with the hon. Lady that the measures are punitive. To take just one of the two that she brought up—bereavement payments—as she knows, this measure is bringing three payments into one. The original system was devised for a world in which women often would not work at all and so needed lifelong support, rather than the extra support that they will be offered after such a tragic event. I think she will find that the new system is much fairer and more effective at providing support when it is most wanted.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
My right hon. Friend is right to point out that the benefit cap is working. It has brought about behavioural change, and evaluation of the current cap level has found that capped households are 41% more likely to go into work than similar, uncapped households. More than that, 38% of those capped said that they were doing more to find work, a third were submitting more applications and a fifth went to more interviews.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Penny Mordaunt
The first thing I would say to the hon. Lady is that although the policy is being introduced in April, it will not start to have an impact on individuals until the summer. There is a personalised support package—13 measures that are outlined in the Green Paper—and she will know that we are also looking at ways in which we can reduce an individual’s household outgoings that are not related to finding work.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that we must do all we can to support into work people with mental health issues, disabilities and learning difficulties, but that, equally importantly, we must ensure that businesses are equipped to help them to sustain their employment?
Penny Mordaunt
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This is about people being able to reach their full potential and make use of all the benefits that come with having a pay packet—all those opportunities and that choice. Employers have a huge role to play. I have been very encouraged by the results of the consultation, particularly from employers wanting to do more, and we must ensure that they have the tools and expertise to do more.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Penny Mordaunt
This consultation affords us an opportunity to look at a person’s whole journey. Generalising, the earlier someone can have a conversation with somebody about their ambitions and the support they will need, the better that journey will be, so I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I suspect that the Employment Minister may not be aware of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, but it is a concern to the Heritage Railway Association and others, who have had advice from leading counsel that young people cannot volunteer in industrial undertakings. We have now written to the Health and Safety Executive, but I wonder whether the Minister will meet me to have a conversation about it.
Penny Mordaunt
I would be very happy to meet my right hon. Friend about that issue. There is a huge amount of work going on to ensure that young people, but others as well, can make use of all opportunities to expand their horizons, and I would be happy to meet her about the specific points she raises.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Damian Green
We are looking at the early warning system trial that took place in Scotland. We are still evaluating it. We will publish the results of the evaluation shortly. Obviously, we will have to do the evaluation first before we decide what to do next.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Last week, I attended two excellent business breakfasts in my constituency—one organised by the Rockingham Forest hotel and the other organised by Corby Business Group. There was a lot of expertise and experience there. In what ways does the Minister think we can use that experience to support young people entering the world of work through mentoring?
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
Mentoring has a critical role to play, and I would encourage those employers in my hon. Friend’s constituency, if they are not already doing so, to get in touch with local schools and colleges and to seek out more opportunities.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady makes a good suggestion. We are looking at that, and if we can share data better—not just across our own systems but with local government—we could improve things, because we could cut down on a huge administrative burden for claimants.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Have Ministers identified the critical difference that makes a recipient of universal credit so much more likely to get into work than someone on jobseeker’s allowance?
Damian Hinds
There are multiple features of universal credit that make that so much more likely. The critical thing is to remove the barriers that create differences between being out of work and being in work. Having the rent paid directly to the individual is one thing; there is also the additional support that people get from the work coach in the jobcentre; then there is the fact that people know how much they will retain for every extra hour worked and extra pound earned.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Damian Hinds
We are very mindful of our duties under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and we do indeed carry out the equality impact assessments that the hon. Lady mentions. She and I have had a chance to talk about the specific jobcentre. What we are doing is making sure that we have a good spread of jobcentres across the country that are accessible to the people who need to use them, but also utilising space better.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Last week, I visited a number of successful factories in my constituency that were taking on additional employment. Does the Secretary of State agree that our long-term economic plan has worked and that the Opposition Members who opposed it should now be contrite? Does he also agree with me that it is rather surprising that until two minutes ago there has not been a single Liberal Democrat Member in the Chamber?
Mr Speaker
The Minister is not responsible for the presence of Liberal Democrat Members. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman wants to ventilate, I am sure he will do so.
Damian Green
I am grateful for your advice, Mr Speaker, because I would be horrified if I were responsible for the attendance record of Liberal Democrats. I am happy to agree completely with my hon. Friend about the long-term economic plan. Our labour market is in its strongest position for years, which is a tribute to a successful economic policy for the past seven years.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
On behalf of my constituent, Miss Leslie, may I ask the Secretary of State to get personally involved in her case? The victim of a house fire when she was 12 weeks old, she has no hands and has multiple physical problems. In the migration from DLA to PIP, she could not open the envelope telling her to go for her assessment. On 1 February, all her benefits ceased, and on 10 February, her Motability car was taken away. This cannot be right; please help.
Damian Green
If the hon. Lady wishes to contact me directly and urgently about that case, we will take it up.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no evidence to suggest that we are going to lose 3 million jobs, as we were so often warned would happen if we left the European Union? Given the recent announcements that thousands of new jobs would be located in this country by the likes of Google and Amazon, does he agree that this country remains a very attractive place in which to do business?
Damian Green
It is perfectly clear that this country is an extremely attractive place in which to do business. I am delighted at the number of big companies—particularly in the tech sector, but in others as well—that have decided to move jobs to this country in recent months, and the Government will do all they can to ensure that that economic success continues.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Leytonstone jobcentre, in my constituency, is threatened with closure, which has spread alarm and despondency among some of the most vulnerable people whom I represent. The nearest jobcentre, in Walthamstow, is more than 3 miles away, which breaks the Minister’s own guidelines. Will he undertake a proper impact assessment and publish the results?
Damian Hinds
Of course I will look into the position, but the criterion is that consultation takes place if a jobcentre is both more than 3 miles away and more than 20 minutes away by public transport. Within that, if either of those conditions is met, it is reasonable to ask people to move.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
On Friday I visited Shipley jobcentre to hear at first hand the concerns of staff about its closure, and their concerns for its clients. Will the Minister agree to meet me so that I can go through that list of concerns and, hopefully, he can find a way of addressing them?
Damian Hinds
Of course I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend, just as I have been happy to meet other Members on both sides of the House to discuss such concerns.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am astonished that the Secretary of State said that the rape clause was not punitive, given that, in their response to the consultation, the Government said that many respondents considered it
“unacceptable for Government to ask women to re-live the ordeal of a rape just in order to make a claim for benefit.”
Will the Minister and the Government accept that the policy is simply unworkable, and absolutely despicable?
Damian Green
I do not accept that, and I do not think the hon. Lady’s description of the exemptions to that clause accord with reality. The system that we are proposing is not remotely punitive; it is entirely sensible and workable.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
What plans has the Secretary of State to reduce the cost of telephone calls to his Department, which can now cost up to 55p a minute? Is he still having discussions with the Social Security Advisory Committee, which believes that all telephone calls to the Department should be at no cost to claimants?
Damian Green
I am, obviously, in constant contact with the Social Security Advisory Committee. People who phone the Department always have an opportunity to ask to be called back if they do not wish to continue their own calls.
Point of Order
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I understand that the point of order flows directly from a question, so, exceptionally, I will take it if it is brief.
Kate Green
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I wish to follow up the answer that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work gave me a few moments ago about the work-related activity component of the employment and support allowance. The Minister said that no one would be affected by the change before the summer, but the DWP website says—and, indeed, I think we always understood—that it will take effect in April. I wonder whether you, Mr Speaker, will invite the Minister to clarify or correct the record.
Mr Speaker
It is not a matter for the Chair, but the Minister is literally itching to appear at the Dispatch Box.
Penny Mordaunt
I am happy to clarify the position. The policy change will happen in April, but it will not start to have an impact on people until later in the year because of the process that they will be going through. However, all the elements of the personalised support package, and all the other things that we are seeking to do to help with individuals’ liquidity, will be in place by April.
Vauxhall/Opel: Proposed Takeover
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the proposed takeover of Vauxhall and Opel by PSA.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Vauxhall is one of our oldest and most valued motor manufacturers. It has been making cars in Britain for 113 years and has been owned for the last 92 years by an overseas investor, General Motors. There are over 40,000 people employed directly by GM or in Vauxhall’s retail or supply chain in this country. Last Tuesday, news emerged that GM was in discussions with French company PSA about the future of GM’s European operations.
I spoke to the president of GM by telephone that afternoon and communicated the importance we attach to Vauxhall’s presence in the UK and to its workforce. I am grateful to Mr Ammann for travelling to meet me in my office last Thursday morning. In our meeting, he told me that no agreement with PSA had been reached and discussions were ongoing, that he shared my assessment of the success of the Vauxhall plants in Britain and the Vauxhall brand, and that GM’s intention was that any deal should be about building on the success of these operations, rather than seeking to rationalise them.
Following my meeting with GM, I travelled to Paris to meet my counterpart in the French Government, the Industry Minister, and following those discussions I met PSA board members for two hours later on Thursday night. I emphasised once again the importance I attach to the continuing success of Vauxhall in Britain and the recognition of its workforce. The PSA executives said that they, too, greatly valued the Vauxhall brand and the commitment of its workforce, and that any deal would build on these strengths. They also emphasised that their operational approach in recent years has been not to engage in plant closures, but to focus on continuous improvements in plant performance. On behalf of the UK Government, I emphasised our commitment to securing continued mutually beneficial access to European markets, and our intention, as part of an ambitious industrial strategy, to enhance the competitiveness of the UK economy generally—including, of course, the automotive sector. Earlier today, my Minister of State spoke to his German counterpart.
We remain in close contact with GM, PSA and the French and German Governments, and I look forward to meeting Carlos Tavares, PSA chief executive, later this week. Of course, I have also met, and will continue to meet, the trade unions and Members of this House with constituency interests. I will do everything I can at all times to secure the best possible future for Vauxhall and its workforce. Our unity of purpose in seeking this good future should be a source of strength in the House, and I will keep the House informed at every opportunity.
Justin Madders
I thank the Secretary of State for his response and for the helpful way in which he has kept me and other interested parties informed as matters have unfolded. As he said, not only are thousands employed directly at the plants in Ellesmere Port and Luton, but there are tens of thousands of other people working in the associated supply chain and sales network.
I want to make it clear that Vauxhall is a British success story. The plants in Ellesmere Port and Luton benefit from dedicated and highly skilled staff, who are among the most efficient anywhere in Europe. If this takeover does go ahead, we need to get the message out that risking the closure of either facility would be a retrograde step not just for the UK economy, but also for the new owners. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government stand ready to use all the tools at their disposal to safeguard British jobs at Vauxhall?
Of course, this is a worrying time for everyone affected, but it is not a new experience. There have been threats to the plants in the past, but they have been seen off by industry-leading collaborations between unions, workforce, management and Government. I want that to carry on, so can the Secretary of State confirm that he will continue to work closely with everybody at every stage?
Although it would be an over-simplification to characterise the proposed deal as being entirely down to Brexit, there are understandable concerns about Brexit’s potential impact, particularly if tariffs were imposed. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the future of the automotive sector is put front and centre of our negotiations and that a red line will be that there will be no deal that imposes tariffs—not just on the finished product, but on components in the supply chain?
We are very proud of our automotive sector in Ellesmere Port and Neston, but we know we cannot take it for granted. I will do everything I possibly can to fight for the future of Vauxhall, and I expect nothing less from the Government.
Greg Clark
I commend the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to update the House on these matters. I completely agree with him about the importance and the success of the workforce at both Ellesmere Port, his constituency plant, and Luton, and of course the supply chain, the retail network across the country and the call centre and customer service sector.
Every part of Britain has a stake in Vauxhall, so I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman: we will do everything we can. My personal commitment, and the commitment of this Government, will be unbounded to make sure that the future, building on the success of the plant in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and the workforce, will be maintained. That is my purpose, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for that. I will of course work with all the groups, including the trade unions and the workforce, to make that case to the new owners, if new owners there are to be.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Vauxhall has been a huge name in Bedfordshire for over a century, and that tradition continues with the building of the excellent Vivaro van at the IBC plant in Luton. I want to see the Secretary of State doing everything he can to secure those jobs, but will he also say something about the pensioners in this country, many of whom are in my constituency and across Bedfordshire? They will be worried about the future of their pensions, so will he say a little bit about that issue as well as about the jobs?
Greg Clark
Of course, the continued welfare of the pensioners is of great importance in any prospective takeover, and I have mentioned in my discussions with GM and with PSA how important it will be. No deal has been concluded yet, but both those organisations are well aware of the importance that I, and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), attach to that matter.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his response and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for his question. Vauxhall employs over 40,000 people in the UK, as the Secretary of State said, including 4,500 at its manufacturing plants in Ellesmere Port and Luton and tens of thousands in its retail and support arms and in the supply chain. It is, as we have heard, a great British success story.
I would like to raise a number of questions. First, the French Government own a 14% share in Peugeot, which has prompted many to suggest that any job cuts are likely to fall on Opel’s six plants in Germany, the UK and Spain. The German Government have already demanded that there must be no job or plant losses as a result of any deal, and German papers reported yesterday that PSA had pledged to continue operating all four of Opel’s German production sites. Will the Secretary of State tell us what action the Government are taking to obtain the same assurances for the UK? Will the Prime Minster demand that no jobs or plants will be lost when she meets the PSA chief executive?
Secondly, at the 2016 Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister stated:
“We are the party of workers”.
To make good that promise, will the Secretary of State confirm that he will demand equal treatment for UK workers, compared with workers in France and Germany, in any final deal package?
Thirdly, the UK’s automotive industry is dependent on the EU for sales and components. Nissan’s special deal provided assurances of unencumbered EU market access, more UK-based suppliers, and support for green vehicle research and development and for jobs and training. Can the Secretary of State confirm reports that PSA has been offered the same deal, and whether, in return, it has given an assurance that no UK jobs or plants will be lost? Is it not the case that all UK industries require certainty and stability? Would he agree that a haphazard and crisis-led approach is quite simply the very antithesis of an industrial strategy?
Greg Clark
First, I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box and congratulate her on her appointment. She will find that there is no one more prepared than I am to be active in supporting employment prospects in every constituency in the country, wherever they might be. In our discussions with industry, including the automotive industry, about overseas investment, there has been tremendous enthusiasm and warm encouragement for our industrial strategy. This is something that has been pursued in other countries for some time. I think the hon. Lady described our approach as haphazard and random—
Greg Clark
Indeed. I am not sure that the hon. Lady, in speaking from her Front Bench, is in the best position to talk about that. She made some important points, however. She mentioned the fact that the French Government own a significant stake in PSA. That is why I felt it was important immediately to have a meeting with my French counterpart. That meeting was very constructive, and he recognised the importance of ensuring that the whole of Europe should be treated fairly in these discussions. We agreed to stay in close touch on that, and I was grateful to him for seeing me.
On the treatment of plants across Europe, one of the points that the PSA executives made to me is that, since the new management of PSA has been in place, they have taken pride in the fact that part of their strategy is not to close plants. The discussions are clearly continuing and no deal has been done, but I share the view of the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and Members on both sides of the House: it is very important that our successful enterprises with successful workforces should be able to continue that success in the future.
As for questions about the European Union, many of GM’s operations in Europe are in Germany, which is not about to leave the European Union, so this is not a Brexit-related transaction. I have said very clearly that our commitment, evidenced in black and white in our industrial strategy, is to build on our strengths in advanced manufacturing, including in the automotive sector. That is available to all players in the sector through the Automotive Council, and in our industrial strategy we mention electric vehicles, battery storage and training, which are important to all members of the sector and, as I began by saying, have attracted enthusiastic support from firms all over the world.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s characteristically speedy response to this new situation. Can he confirm that the UK automotive sector is not only integral and important to our industrial strategy but will play a vital role in shaping our future trade relationship with EU member states post-Brexit?
Greg Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the strengths of our automotive sector is that it is particularly international. It benefits from and is strengthened by trade to and from not only the rest of Europe but the whole world. Vauxhall’s being owned by GM for such a long time is a reflection of the fact that the motor industry has long been international beyond Europe. The industry will be very prominent in our discussions.
Callum McCaig (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing this urgent question. I welcome the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) to her Front-Bench position, and I look forward to working with her in that role.
Like every Member of this House, my party’s thoughts are with those affected at the plants in Ellesmere Port and Luton and with all those who work in the supply chain or for the company in other ways. I welcome that the Secretary of State has led from the front in his interactions with the French and others.
What assurances has the Secretary of State sought and/or received from the French Government or from PSA about the plants, employment and, in particular, the terms and conditions of employees and pensions? We cannot ignore the impact that Brexit might have on this issue. If there is direct competition between a German plant and a UK plant—regardless of the undoubted strength of UK plants—given that 75% of a UK plant’s components come from, and 80% of its exports go to, the single market, it will be at a comparative disadvantage with European counterparts.
Given that the Secretary of State has said that he will do everything he can at all times to rule out the hard Brexit that has been proposed, will he reassess single market membership? We can leave the EU, but we do not have to leave the single market, and staying in the single market would protect employees at Vauxhall and right across the economy.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I thought it was important to have discussions immediately with both parties to the negotiations. It is fair to say that, as a deal has not been concluded and discussions are continuing, the prospective purchaser is clearly not in a position to give contractual guarantees. One of the important reasons for meeting was to have a clear understanding of the prospective purchaser’s purpose and to commit to having further meetings as the discussions continue—I will be having a further meeting later in the week. Of course, the conditions for workers and pensioners are uppermost in the discussions.
In the context of Brexit, I made it clear, as the Prime Minister did in her speech at Lancaster House, that we want to negotiate the best possible access to the single market, free of tariffs and bureaucratic impediments. It is also important to reflect on the fact that we have a very strong and successful domestic market, with Vauxhall having a particularly strong share of it. That was mentioned to me by both parties, GM and PSA; they are very aware of that, and we will emphasise it in the days and weeks ahead.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Are the Government considering their policy on when, why and how to intervene in mergers that could be damaging to British jobs and the public interest?
Greg Clark
In the context of the Hinkley Point C decision, we said that we would come forward with measures to govern the critical national infrastructure regime. In addition, we have proposed some changes to our corporate governance regime, and we will be making suggestions as to how we can keep our merger regime up to date.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State said that this will not become entangled in Brexit, but the concern will be that the issue of this important company’s future in Britain will become collateral damage in wider negotiations and deals on Brexit. In the face of elections in France and Germany this year, does he think that nations will have to engage in an ever-rising bidding game in order to maintain production facilities in their countries? If so, what will he do for British manufacturing?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman should reflect a bit more positively on the success of Vauxhall in this country. The two plants we have been talking about are among the most efficient in Europe and, therefore, the world. So this is not about altruism; these are successful plants, which is a tribute to their workforce, and they are competitive. As I said a few moments ago, the other side of the equation is that the Vauxhall brand is a very successful one in this country. So we start from a position of strength and, as he would want, I will be vigorous in promoting those strengths and influencing the negotiations so that this excellent workforce can continue and go from strength to strength in the future.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the importance of this plant to the Cheshire and greater Cheshire economy. Will he assure the House that he will ensure that PSA understands the skill and efficiency of the plant and its workforce?
Greg Clark
I will indeed, and from my initial conversations I can say that I think that is well understood. It is matter of pride that our automotive industry in general and those two plants in particular are such high performers, and nobody will be more vigorous than me in reminding all parties to the transaction of that.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State believe that it will be much harder for companies that are looking at their integrated European operations to want to base themselves in the UK, because of the uncertainty surrounding our leaving the single market and the customs union? Does he agree that in those circumstances they are going to need some very attractive sweeteners? What sweeteners has he offered? Are those sweeteners also going to be available to the medium-priority and low-priority areas that the Government have identified, such as fisheries and chemicals, and steel and telecoms?
Greg Clark
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman what I said to the Chair of the Select Committee: he should reflect on the competitiveness of our automotive industry. Companies choose to invest in Britain because we are a competitive place from which to do business, we have a skilled and flexible workforce, and we have fantastic research and development facilities. We have been absolutely clear in the industrial strategy consultation that these strengths will be extended so that we continue to be a beacon of success in this and other industries.
Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)
The Secretary of State has clearly made some reassuring noises to the firm. We need transparency on those, so will he now respond to the Treasury Committee request to publish the letter he sent to Nissan on 21 October giving reassurances to that company?
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend may not have noticed that, some time ago, I said that of course we would release the letter sent to Nissan at the time when it is no longer commercially confidential.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for his fast action in meeting all the parties. I represent people who work in the Ellesmere Port factory. We local MPs are all justifiably proud of the work that has been done there to keep the production process as one of the most efficient in the world. We bow to no one in the world when it comes to efficiency and productivity at the Ellesmere Port plant. Nevertheless, given that it is effectively much cheaper to get rid of British workers, because of the nature of employment rights in this country compared with those in France and Germany, what can the Secretary of State do to ensure that, when it comes to possible cost cutting, the equation is evened up so that we can support British production and British jobs?
Greg Clark
Like the hon. Lady, I am proud of the performance of the two plants, as well as that of the other plants in our automotive sector. The PSA executives communicated to me that performance is their guide to strategy. The two plants have very effective performance, so I want and expect them to be major parts of the future of an expanded group, if the transaction proceeds.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s action on this incredibly important issue of retaining the plants at Ellesmere Port and Luton. Most investment in motor manufacturing in this country comes from overseas, with the exception of Aston Martin and Triumph. What is my right hon. Friend doing to encourage British-based investment in motor manufacturing so that we do not always rely on overseas investment?
Greg Clark
I am very proud that we attract the world’s best automotive companies and that they see Britain as a place to prosper and succeed, so I am always encouraging that level of investment. Of course, it is not only about the major manufacturers; the supply chain is increasingly important in all advanced manufacturing, including the automotive industry. We have an increasingly good record of attracting small and medium-sized businesses either to locate here from overseas, or to grow from the bottom up. My hon. Friend will know that our industrial strategy makes a great focal point of the opportunity to grow our supply chains.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The Secretary of State understands the importance of the plant at Ellesmere Port, and its suppliers and retailers, to the wider north-west’s automotive sector, which includes Jaguar Land Rover at Halewood. What will he do to ensure that we do not lose some of the essential skills, jobs and firms, and that the sector in the north-west does not shrink as a consequence of factors that are completely out of the control of the Government and the people who work at the Ellesmere Port plant?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady knows from the work that we have done together that it is possible to make a case for attracting investment and commitment. She is absolutely right that the plant is important, and not only to the north-west but to the whole country, if the dealership network is taken into account. My ambition, as is the case for the rest of advanced manufacturing, is for our automotive sector to be more successful and to employ more people in the future. That does not happen by accident; it will involve our being engaged with the sector and making sure that facilities for research and development and training establish our reputation as the go-to place in the world for motor manufacturing, as we are for other sectors. I will work with the hon. Lady and others, and I will be vigorous in making sure that that message is very loudly understood.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
Leyland in my constituency has a long and proud history as a part of the automotive sector. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tell the House what specific support for the automotive sector will be included in the industrial strategy?
Greg Clark
The automotive sector has been one of our most successful sectors in recent years. That is partly due to the effective arrangements that have been put in place through the Automotive Council, whereby firms, including small and medium-sized suppliers, can work together to support each other. An example of that is the National Automotive Innovation Centre, which I visited recently, where new facilities are being made available not only for the majors, but for people with new ideas who are setting up new businesses. That can reinforce and continue the success of one of our most effective industrial sectors.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
A number of my constituents work for Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port and Unilever in Port Sunlight. If there are Members who think that everything in our economy is rosy, I invite them to come to Wirral South this weekend and say that. When it comes to the high-value manufacturing that the Secretary of State has talked about, does he realise the importance of the customs union, and has he made a great and important contribution to the Prime Minister’s strategy on Brexit with regard to keeping us inside the customs union?
Greg Clark
The automotive sector, like others, trades across borders. That is one reason why the Prime Minister and I have been very clear that we need to be able to negotiate trading arrangements that maintain our access across those borders without tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments—that is clearly understood. Those negotiations have some way to go, but it is important to emphasise, as I and the Prime Minister have done, what our intention is.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What guarantees might General Motors USA be required to make to General Motors GB with respect to the pension deficit before any disposal can take place?
Greg Clark
As my right hon. Friend knows, the independent Pensions Regulator is the arbiter of any changes to pension arrangements. It is absolutely right that such robust independence is in place. I emphasise that discussions are still continuing. No agreement has yet been reached but, as I have said to a number of colleagues across the House, the future of pensioners is very important to me, as it is to all Members.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I was involved in the discussions that took place the last time that GM considered selling its European brands in the wake of the financial crisis. At that time, we had a successful resolution, in that the company decided to retain the brands. The Secretary of State is right that Vauxhall is tremendously successful. The Astra and Corsa are among the top 10 best-selling cars in the UK, but those cars are made by a Europe-wide company that has a Europe-wide supply chain. In any of the discussions that he has had in the past week, have exchange rate movements over the past year been raised?
Greg Clark
We have of course discussed all aspects of Brexit. One feature of the decisions that are being made about investment is the opportunity to locate more of the supply chain firms nearer to the production facilities. Across the board, it is important to emphasise our commitment to negotiating the best possible access to the single market, and also that the intrinsic competitiveness of the UK makes it attractive to overseas investors.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
If I were on a board of directors of a very successful vehicle manufacturing outlet in the fifth biggest economy in the world and that economy was about to leave the EU, I think that I would want to invest more in that facility and make sure that I did not put all my eggs in one basket. Does not the future for Vauxhall look rather good and not the reverse?
Greg Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend that we have in Vauxhall a very successful firm that is well regarded in the domestic market and across the continent. It is building on the success that is in prospect, but it is important that, through the discussions, that is secured in the future arrangements of the firm.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Many of the thousands of people employed at Vauxhall Ellesmere Port live in Wirral and they are understandably concerned about the future of their jobs following the announcement of PSA Group’s acquisition of Opel. Some 80% of the cars made at Vauxhall Ellesmere Port are exported directly to EU states, and 75% of the value of each car is imported. The Prime Minister is reported to have received a meeting request from the chief executive of the PSA Group, which Downing Street has said will take place
“in principle, subject to diary availability”.
Will the Secretary of State suggest that the Prime Minister make a space in her diary as a matter of urgency?
Greg Clark
I think that the hon. Lady started by saying that the deal has been agreed, so let me first say that the deal has not been done. Secondly, no one could be under any illusions as to the vigour of our response. Of course, the Prime Minister will need to find the time in her diary for a meeting, but we are keen to continue the close contact we have had.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The various takeovers that were talked about over the weekend show the importance of having robust and enforceable rules on takeovers and mergers. When will the Government come forward with new policy so that we will know not only how we will handle takeovers when we leave the European Union, but how we can intervene in deals that we do not want to take place?
Greg Clark
It is important to reflect on the context: our reputation as an open economy that attracts overseas investment is one of the foundations of our success. We need to maintain that success and reputation. We have said that we will bring forward proposals, as we will regarding corporate governance. We will do that in due course and I will update the House at that time.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
As a trade union official, I supported the management and workers at Ellesmere Port through new model bidding processes three times. Each time, they demonstrated themselves to be productive, efficient and flexible, and their plant to be profitable. Unfortunately, those attributes cut no ice with Peugeot, which has form in this area, as any Coventry Member will attest. May I suggest that the Secretary of State uses this opportunity to beef up his industrial strategy? I also suggest that any public procurement of motor vehicles, for example by police forces, local authorities and Government Departments, should involve only the purchase of cars from companies that build in the UK, and that those that choose not to build in the UK should not be considered?
Greg Clark
Of course, I discussed with PSA the context of its closure of the Coventry plant. It was pointed out to me that the company has new management and a different approach was described. These are early stages, but that was a better message to receive than the alternative. However, like the hon. Gentleman, I want to ensure that it is reflected in practice. On procurement, it is obviously important that we get good value for money, and we have changed the procurement rules to take into account some of these wider impacts.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Opel has not made a profit in the EU since 1999, and Carlos Tavares, the chief executive of PSA, has a record of drastically reducing costs. What further tools does my right hon. Friend have in his armament to ensure that PSA does not move vehicle producing factories and the supply chain out of the UK?
Greg Clark
The discussions are at an early stage. The leak of the discussions came out only in the middle of last week and I have had a number of meetings since then. I have been clear to the House that the successful operations in this country need to be maintained. The PSA side of the discussions has pointed out quite recently that Vauxhall is not yet its company to make contractual statements about, but the direction in which the discussions are going is clear. I will continue to be vigorous in extracting the best possible agreements about the future of Vauxhall here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and what he has said so far. It is clear that Vauxhall’s UK plants are run to a high standard, with above-normal efficiency ratings, so will the Secretary of State outline what support he will offer to ensure that the plants are retained—and, indeed, enhanced—and that jobs are secured during any takeover? What influence, including financial assistance, can the Government exert to help?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. Again, I come back to the fact that Vauxhall’s UK operation is successful. It is efficient and effective, which is the reason, as with other car companies, why investments come to this country. We have had a successful programme of joint working with the automotive sector in areas such as research and development, and in training and upskilling the workforce. That programme continues and is available to any manufacturer that participates in the sector.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The UK car sector and steel manufacturing are inextricably linked, so what role does my right hon. Friend see the industrial strategy playing in the betterment of both?
Greg Clark
The benefit of an industrial strategy is that we can look at the connections between areas and between sectors. Of course, a thriving automotive sector in this country is good for the steel industry.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the weaker protections against dismissal that are afforded to UK workers make them more vulnerable than their European counterparts? Given the Conservative party’s supposed recent conversion into a party of the workers, what plans does he have to strengthen protections for UK workers?
Greg Clark
I would say two things to the hon. Lady. First, the standards we have for workers in this country are very exacting, and we have made a commitment to maintain them as we leave the European Union. The second thing is that our record of employment is one we should be proud of—in just the last few days, we were able to report employment of record numbers. That shows that the environment we operate in is attractive to investors, and the consequence of that is good jobs for British workers.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State said, the UK automotive manufacturing sector has been extremely impressive in the past decade. However, what is striking is that the one advanced industrial nation that has not invested in the UK sector is France. Does he believe that a French business such as PSA will really choose to invest in the UK when we are outside the European Union? Will not such a business invest in France and Germany? Will the Secretary of State therefore urgently look at a British solution to the future of the excellent Ellesmere Port plant, which provides work in north Wales, on Merseyside and right across the north-west?
Greg Clark
Notwithstanding—in fact, in many cases, as a result of—the successful partnership with overseas car manufacturers, 2016 was a record year for car production in this country, which was at a 17-year high. Providing that the arrangements are right, we should welcome other countries’ confidence in this country. The conversations that I have had with PSA lead me to believe that its intentions, as communicated to me, are to invest in performance, and we have a proud record of that.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State approaches this issue with great calm and carefulness. I am sure that he has looked at the impact on the firm of being inside or outside the customs union. He wants a zero-tariff regime with Europe, but we have heard that a high proportion of the components are imported. Would the Vauxhall cars that are exported meet the threshold for being made in the UK under the rules of origin?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady takes us further ahead than these preliminary discussions about a prospective sale of GM’s assets to PSA have got to. I have been very clear with not just PSA but every auto company—indeed, every manufacturer—that our intention is to pursue constructive negotiations and to have the best possible access to the single market, respecting the need to avoid bureaucratic impediments and tariffs.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I was born in Luton and spent the first 40 years of my life there, so I know how losing the Vauxhall plant would absolutely rip the heart out of the town. However, the issue is much broader than that, and the anxiety felt by Vauxhall workers is shared by others in the manufacturing sector as we face Brexit. What assurances can the Minister give that he is building into the Brexit strategy and the industrial strategy something that will embed those manufacturing jobs in our communities?
Greg Clark
I am delighted that the hon. Lady makes that point. I hope that she will respond to the consultation on the industrial strategy, because it is very clear that it reflects on and proposes ways to strengthen what are already pillars of success, including our excellence in research and development in terms of the efficiency of the industrial processes and the skills of the workforce. We cannot stand still. We need to prepare for the future, and that is precisely what the industrial strategy, which has been warmly welcomed by international investors, sets out to do.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
This deal would inevitably lead to job losses around Europe. The Prime Minister has said that we might have to leave the EU without a deal, so tariffs on vehicles and components are now a possibility. Does that not mean that UK employees will inevitably be at a disadvantage compared with their colleagues elsewhere in the European Union?
Greg Clark
What the right hon. Gentleman misses out of his analysis is the efficiency and success of our operations here in this country, and also our strong domestic market. It is necessary to negotiate and to get the best possible terms for our Brexit arrangement—everyone is clear about that—but he should not underplay our strengths that attract businesses to invest in this country.
Points of Order
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would appear that there has been no change in the processes of the House as a result of the change at the Table—that is, no wigs, which I very much welcome; I wish it had happened a long time ago. With regard to the message received from the Queen—from the Head of State—that occurred at the very beginning of our proceedings, I wonder whether the message could be communicated to the House by you, Sir, instead of the Whip coming in with the stick, and the rest of it.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer is that the message that is delivered comes from the Government, and so I do not see that there would be an obvious logic in its being delivered by me. [Interruption.] I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but Her Majesty communicates through Ministers, and that is what has happened. With regard to his other observation, I note what he has said. Without my rehearsing the whole issue, he will know that the request for a change came from the Clerk of the House and his senior colleagues, and it was agreed to unanimously by members of the House of Commons Commission. When I responded to points of order, I made no bones about the fact that I welcomed that change, but it was proposed by others and agreed by the Commission, chaired by me.
Mr Winnick
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Needless to say, I agree entirely with what you said about the wigs. On the procedure at the beginning, despite the explanation you gave, on the advice of the Clerk, as I understand it, I wonder whether it could be altered so that there is more emphasis on the message from the Head of State—from the Queen—rather than all the attention being on the Whip coming in, whether he will be able to march backwards without difficulty, and the rest of it. It does not give the impression of a modernised House of Commons.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have made the point before, and I am happy to repeat it—I think that most people, certainly including the hon. Gentleman, will accept it—that change in this place comes about by the will of the House, and it is right that that should be the case. If he wishes to initiate a process of attempted change, it is absolutely open to him to do so and for the case to be argued either way. I think we will leave it there for today.
Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords]
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I wonder whether the Minister could explain why we are changing the programme motion.
Mr Speaker
I allowed the scope and the momentary wait, and the hon. Gentleman has taken his opportunity. I am extremely grateful to him for an extremely succinct speech. It is open to the Minister to respond, if she wishes to do so, but she is not under any obligation to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
indicated dissent.
Mr Speaker
The Minister does not seem to wish to take advantage of the enticing opportunity that has been offered.
Question put and agreed to.
Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [Lords]
Monday 20th February 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 View all Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 20 February 2017 - (20 Feb 2017)
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 4, page 2, line 6, at end insert
“, which includes a digital attack if the cultural property in question is in digital form.”
This amendment would make explicit that an offence is committed if the act committed under paragraphs (a) to (e) of paragraph 1 of Article 15 of the Second Protocol is a digital attack, where the cultural property in question is in digital form.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, page 2, line 17, at end insert
“, or
(c) a foreign national serving under the military command of the UK Armed Forces.”
This amendment would ensure that an offence is committed if an act described in paragraph 1(d) or (e) of Article 15 of the Second Protocol is committed by any foreign national serving under the military command of the UK Armed Forces.
Amendment 1, in clause 17, page 8, line 12, leave out
“or having reason to suspect”.
Amendment 2, page 8, line 12, leave out “having reason to suspect” and insert “believing”.
Amendment 3, page 8, line 12, leave out “having reason to suspect” and insert “suspecting”.
Kevin Brennan
The amendment seeks to probe the Government’s thinking on whether digital attacks on cultural property would be considered as damaging cultural property under the Bill. I say in passing that we very much support the Bill, having first introduced it ourselves, but sadly we ran out of time in the Parliament prior to 2010. The Bill will bring into domestic law the offence created by article 15 of the second protocol to the 1954 Hague convention, so it is not before time. I am glad that there is House-wide support for the Bill, but we want to probe a few more points during the remaining stages, to make sure that the Government’s position is clear and on the record before it is sent for Royal Assent.
During previous debates, both here and in the other place, there have been many discussions about the digital reach of the Bill. Given that the original convention was written in 1954, with a subsequent protocol, that was obviously long before issues of digital property would have been actively considered. We welcome the numerous assurances provided by the Government, including by the Minister in Committee, that cultural property in digital form could be protected. If it is true that digital property is protected under the Bill, it would be natural that digital attacks on that property are also covered. The purpose of the amendment is to get the Government to confirm whether that is the case.
It would not be reasonable to recognise digital cultural property but not digital attacks on such property. Given that the Bill involves creating criminal offences, it is important that the Government put their thinking on the record. Their response to an amendment discussed in Committee highlights the need for clarity. We debated whether the cultural emblem of the blue shield, which the Bill introduces from the convention and which marks a protected item, could be shown in digital form. The Minister said:
“For modern, born-digital material, such as films and music, in practice we would expect the emblem to be displayed on the physical object on which the material is stored or on the building in which the physical storage object is kept, rather than being displayed digitally. That would help to ensure that the emblem is readily visible. That is not to say that it cannot also be depicted in digital form.”––[Official Report, Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 15 November 2016; c. 9.]
That could be interpreted as assuming that cultural property, even that which is digital, would be attacked only in a physical sense—in other words, that any attacker would be in close physical proximity to the item and able to see the blue shield on its casing. In reality, however, digital content is more likely to be attacked by way of hacking, in which case the question of how the blue shield could flag up digital cultural property to a potential attacker is relevant. Somebody hacking into a database of some sort will not see the shield on the hard drive’s casing.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The question is slightly harder to answer than it might initially appear. On operations, foreign armed forces are embedded with and serve alongside British troops in various guises and in many different capacities. Unless the hon. Gentleman can be more specific, I can understand the MOD’s difficulty.
Kevin Brennan
It is certainly within the power of the Ministry of Defence to answer the question in terms of its own definitions. However, it cannot have been that hard, because the Minister for the Armed Forces subsequently changed his mind and wrote to me, telling me that he could give me some information. It is always dangerous to intervene too early during the development of an argument. On 28 November, the Minister decided that he could provide some information, albeit not as precise as one might have desired.
Kevin Brennan
I will give the hon. Gentleman five out of 10 on that basis. The Minister for the Armed Forces wrote:
“As my formal PQ response made clear—a definitive response to your question could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
However, it is roughly estimated that at least 200 members of foreign armed forces are either liaison officers or on exchange officer roles annually across the three services.”
He went on to confirm that the Department “does not routinely collect” the requested information about embedded foreign armed forces.
That does at least tell us what kind of numbers we are talking about, albeit not in precise terms. However, the point of my question was to get a general idea of how many people might be impacted by this legislation and to understand whether the Government had a grip on the rough ballpark figures.
Our concern was how the Bill would impact on foreign nationals embedded in the UK armed forces who were involved in the destruction or illegal exportation of cultural property. In her response to my amendment in Committee, the Minister said that
“if a foreign soldier were to commit an act set out in article 15(1)(d) or (e) while embedded in a UK unit, we would dismiss them and send them back to their home state to be dealt with for disobeying orders. The individual would face the consequences of their actions on their return home, and there is no loophole for embedded forces; that would apply whether or not a foreign state had ratified the convention or protocols, as the individual would be disobeying an order.”––[Official Report, Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Public Bill Committee, 15 November 2016; c. 14.]
Now that we have a figure from the Government on the number of foreign nationals to whom the Bill will apply, albeit a rough one, I just wonder—
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I appreciate that these are probing amendments, because if the hon. Gentleman were to press them to the vote, I do not think he would get much support from the people behind him. However, will he explain what he thinks is the difference between the terminology in the Bill, which is
“a person subject to UK service jurisdiction”,
and that in his amendment, which is
“a foreign national serving under the military command of the UK Armed Forces”,
because he has not answered that question yet?
Kevin Brennan
I do not think that is a question for me to answer. It is one for the Minister to answer in her response. As for his comments about those on the Benches behind, I always prefer these odds when debating in the House of Commons.
What assessment has been made of whether this matter constitutes a risk or a loophole? In Committee, the Minister mentioned that when a foreign national is embedded,
“a bespoke status of forces agreement or memorandum of understanding is drawn up that sets out responsibility for the individual involved.”—[Official Report, Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Public Bill Committee, 15 November 2016; c. 14.]
Is responsibility for protecting cultural property a part of that understanding? If it is not, will it be following the passage of the Bill?
As the House knows, the UK armed forces already abide by the terms of the convention. I very much welcome that, and I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to their work and their outstanding contribution. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure the House that although the armed forces are a complex organisation, the application of the Bill will be consistent for everybody who serves in them.
The other amendments in this group were tabled by Government Members. We had fairly extensive discussions in Committee on the impact of the Bill on the arts market so I do not propose to say anything further on that matter.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
I am very sympathetic to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). He has ploughed a lonely furrow with great elegance and humour. At least he can claim to have 100% support from the representatives of the Labour party today. I am not entirely sure that I can, but I will have a go and see whether I can tempt the House towards supporting my amendments—amendments 1, 2 and 3. I am very happy to say that they were co-signed by my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington (Victoria Borwick) and for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham). Like the shadow Minister, although we are few in number we are very high in quality.
Sir Edward Garnier
Modesty is not a word I have ever heard of. It may be, to refer to the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, a cultural object, but clearly one that is far too expensive for me to have ever clapped eyes on.
If I may, I would like to tease out from the Government further information on, and their thoughts about, their policy in relation to clause 17, which sets up the offence of dealing in unlawfully exported cultural property. I should say by way of introduction—if, three minutes into my speech, I am entitled to call these words an introduction—that it strikes me that the Bill is, by and large, entirely uncontroversial, deeply unexciting and about 50 years too late. That said, if we are to introduce uncontroversial Bills 50 years too late, we might as well get the law right. It strikes me that clause 17 contains a self-evident defect, which I dealt with on Second Reading on 31 October 2016. If I may, I would like briefly to rehearse those arguments for the following reasons.
I convinced myself—I remain convinced and have yet to be persuaded otherwise by the Government—that the second element of the criminal intent provision in clause 17, which I criticised, is legally incoherent. Beyond that, I have yet to be persuaded by the Secretary of State and the Minister of either the content or quality of the counterpoints they made in response to the concerns identified in my three amendments. We have had a number of meetings, both one-on-one and collectively —possibly with my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, but certainly with other representatives of the art market—and I think it is fair to say that our concerns about the wording “having reason to suspect” in clause 17 have not been answered satisfactorily.
There has been some assertion: “This wording is better,” say the Government. There has been further assertion that the wording that I prefer, which comes from the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, has failed to lead to the prosecution of any people guilty or suspected of being guilty of offences under that Act and that therefore the level of criminal intent needs to be lowered.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I apologise for missing the start of my right hon. and learned Friend’s speech—
Mr Burrowes
My right hon. and learned Friend does himself an injustice: repetition can be a good thing, if he is right, but it might not be such a good thing if the point is overstated. I refer him to the Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) Order 2003, as well as the EU Council regulation on Syrian cultural property, where the wording is:
“had no reason to suppose”.
That is similar to the wording in the Bill, and I understand that there has been no grave injustice served on those law-abiding, prudent antique dealers who have been observing those provisions.
Sir Edward Garnier
My hon. Friend anticipates me: that was the fourth point I was going to make in due course. The difficulty in his making that point—I am grateful that, either through his own research or thanks to assistance from other hon. Friends, he has been able to make it to me—is that those are statutory instruments, which were never debated on the Floor of the House. I am not even sure they were debated in Committee. The whole point about passing criminal legislation that could lead to an individual being sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment or, if a company, to an unlimited fine is that we ought to pass good law. We ought to debate it and we ought to allow an idea to be tested, sometimes to destruction. The Afghanistan and Iraq orders that my hon. Friend talks about have not been tested in this place. The 2003 Act was tested in this place and this Bill is being tested in this place, and if the Government do not enjoy that, well I am sorry for them.
Mr Burrowes
My right hon. and learned Friend is dealing with his fourth point, but I wonder whether one of his subsequent points deals with international best practice in relation to United Nations resolutions, including paragraph 7 of Security Council resolution 1483 of 22 May 2003 or Security Council resolution 2199 of 2015, which focus on the same provision of “reasonable suspicion” that is in the Bill, which are obviously binding on all UN members and which are also part of the international legal architecture of our accession to The Hague convention.
Sir Edward Garnier
I am sure that my hon. Friend will have plenty of opportunity in the next two or three hours to make his own speech, but I am always very happy to take his interventions. If, however, he looks at The Hague convention—which is being brought into our criminal law by this Bill—he will see that there is no rubric or form of words that are required by that convention to be imported into our criminal law. If we are to base our criminal law on a form of precedent, I would look to the most recent statute, which is the 2003 Act, rather than two undebated and, I think, time-limited statutory instruments. But anyhow, my hon. Friend will no doubt have an opportunity over the next few hours to develop the points that he has thought a great deal about.
I have yet to be persuaded that the Government’s counter-arguments, which I rudely describe as mere assertions, deal with the points that I made on Second Reading. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading—I know that the hon. Member for Cardiff West, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, has carefully read what I said on 31 October and recited it every week at the Labour party parliamentary meetings, which is why Labour Members have not attended this afternoon—but I make a serious point: the content of clause 17 sets up two systems, which is to say, actual knowledge, which is fair enough, and “reason to suspect”, which in my view is not fair enough and could lead to the conviction of people for lacking curiosity or being careless, rather than for having the requisite criminal knowledge.
During the meetings, as I say, the Government undertook to find out from the Crown Prosecution Service how many cases had been dropped or not pursued by virtue of what was described as the high level of criminal intent required under the 2003 Act. As I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—there is no information to support that assertion. That argument, it seems to me, falls away.
To persuade me and those who think like me who come from the art market rather than from Parliament that this is a perfectly acceptable way to design this clause, it has been said, “Don’t worry; we will produce some guidance to the CPS, or the CPS itself will produce some guidance, which will inform the decisions of the police or prosecutors about whether to prosecute under the ‘reason to suspect’ arm of clause 17.” Of course, we have not seen that guidance, and we do not know where it is or what it will say; neither do we know what its legal effect will be.
I repeat that we are here creating an offence that could lead to somebody being sent to prison for seven years. Now if I am about to be sent to prison for seven years, I would rather like to know why. If I am to be prosecuted—even if I am later acquitted—I would again like to have some clearer information about the basis on which I am to be prosecuted.
I would hope, too, that all of us in the Chamber would like to keep an eye on the public expenditure implications of running prosecutions. We all know that the court system is overloaded; we all know that bringing prosecutions is expensive and has to be paid for by the taxpayer. If we are asked to introduce into our criminal law wording that foments uncertainty and a sense of unfairness, we should all be a little more careful before permitting such wording to go ahead.
As I said a few moments ago, I shall not repeat everything I said on 31 October, because it is there on the record for everyone to see. Let me finish, however, with this plea. If the Government are not persuaded to get the law right, simply because so few people are interested in this subject, and they know that they can whip the Government party to come in here and vote for whatever it is they want, I say fair enough in that I accept the arithmetic of our legislative democracy. It would be foolish of me to think that by standing up and speaking on a Monday afternoon I could persuade others to defeat the Government.
I am not going to press my amendments to the vote. I do not know whether my hon. Friends the Members for Kensington and for North West Norfolk have other plans, but for my part, I shall not urge them to press these amendments. What I do urge, however, is that the Government at least condescend to tell us what on earth they are on about. So far, we have not had any genuine information or any genuine evidence or any thoughtful response to the concerns that I have expressed. As I said on the previous occasion, these are not just my concerns; they are shared by many who have worked for many years in the art market and have practical experience of the difficulties caused by woolly wording.
My arguments have also been assisted by and based on what has been said by people who have far greater legal expertise than I have. I listed their names on Second Reading. They include a former Lord Chief Justice, a professor of law at Leicester University, a highly respected Queen’s Counsel who specialises in criminal law, and many others who—while approving of the policy behind the Bill and the inclusion of this ancient convention—fear that we are setting off on a wrong track that may lead to injustice. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister hates injustice of all sorts, and I suspect that, when she finds it in a Bill of which she has the conduct, she will probably want to do something to correct it.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Let me begin by repeating what I said on Second Reading. Both the SNP and the Scottish Government welcome the Bill and the purpose that it serves. Like the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), I support its enactment.
When talking about amendment 4, the hon. Gentleman made some good points about the use of the blue shield in digital form, which seems to be an eminently sensible idea. I also agree with his amendment 5. It is only right that foreign troops who are embedded in United Kingdom forces adhere to the same standards and rules as those forces. The Government can be assured of our support for this important legislation, so that the United Kingdom can ratify the 1954 Hague convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict, and accede to both the 1954 and the 1999 protocols.
Although the United Kingdom has never ratified the Hague convention, it is widely and rightly acknowledged that UK armed forces already comply fully with it during military operations, and that they also recognise the blue shield, which is—as the hon. Gentleman explained—the emblem that identifies cultural property that is protected under the convention and its protocols. I think it would be useful if the Government considered extending it to digital property. Ratifying the protocols would allow the Government to give our troops formal responsibility when they are operating in armed conflict.
We firmly believe that, no matter where it is located in the world, we all benefit from having a rich and diverse historical and cultural heritage, and that every effort must be made to protect that in time of war—and, indeed, at all times. I do not expect to hear many, if any, dissenting voices when it comes to the principles of the Bill. We all recognise that a people’s culture is a crucial part of who they are now and what they were in the past. For virtually all communities, regardless of where they are in the world, cultural heritage is a symbol whose importance cannot be overstated.
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall return to a theme on which I touched briefly on Second Reading: the fate of the Parthenon marbles, which are still referred to by some as the Elgin marbles in memory of the man who misappropriated them from the Parthenon just over two centuries ago. What better way could there be of marking the passing of the Bill than allowing the Parthenon marbles to return to—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I have tried to allow the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but, as he knows, we are dealing with amendments rather than with Second Reading speeches. Tempted though I was to hear the hon. Gentleman’s Second Reading speech again, I must keep him within order.
Brendan O’Hara
I will be very brief indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We know that there has been systematic looting of priceless artefacts, and that a flood of artefacts are coming on to the market throughout Europe, America and the far east. We must do everything that we can to protect those artefacts, and I hope that the Government will take on board the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. I think it incumbent on all of us to protect the cultural heritage, regardless of whose it is. I look forward to supporting the Government, and I am sure that they will accept the amendments.
Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)
I declare that I am president of the British Antique Dealers’ Association and that I have also been advised by the British Art Market Federation, the Antiquities Dealers’ Association and LAPADA, all of which have made written representations on this Bill. I concur with the comments of my colleagues that the art and antiques industry is fully supportive of the principles and aims of this Bill.
Kevin Brennan
Does the hon. Lady take any comfort from the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill, which envisages that there would be one prosecution every 30 years under the Act?
Victoria Borwick
Of course we all hope that is the case, but that is why we all in this House, jointly I believe, are seeking clarification: we do not want unsubstantiated allegations that something was illegally removed from an occupied territory, or a request for something that was legally exported. The allegation might be totally groundless when something is just about to be sold or exhibited, but the seller, genuinely believing that the item had not been illegally exported, would fear that the allegation could be deemed “a reason to suspect”, and that could lead to the item then being withdrawn from sale. The time-dependent opportunity to sell it would be lost and the very act of withdrawal could well then damage the artwork’s future saleability. The mere making of an unfounded allegation that an item was unlawfully exported from a potentially occupied territory after 1954 may place in the mind of a potential dealer or auctioneer a reason to suspect that it has been unlawfully exported, and although that might not later turn out to be the case, he will not go near it because it has been tainted.
I give as an example an old master picture that has changed hands on the legitimate open market in Europe in the past few years. It is sent to London for sale by auction. Due diligence is carried out and its known provenance is investigated, as is its sale history, and checks are made that the item has not been stolen. The picture is then included in an auction catalogue which is published several days before a sale. An allegation is then made that it was removed from an occupied eastern European country in the 1960s. Time is necessarily short to investigate whether that is true. Attempts to resolve the matter beyond doubt before the auction do not succeed, and even though it may well prove groundless, the allegation itself represents a reason for suspicion under the terms of the Bill as currently drafted. Not wishing to run the risk of prosecution, the auction house has no alternative but to withdraw the picture from the auction, to the disadvantage of its owner who, at best, will have to wait for another auction and, at worst, will face financial loss, as marketing it for a second time could adversely affect its value. The rarer and more valuable a picture or piece of art it is, the greater is the risk that a successful sale will be prejudiced by its withdrawal from an auction. In time, the allegation could well prove groundless, but the damage will have been done.
I recall the Secretary of State saying on the Floor of the House on 31 October that
“It is important that we are clear that the Bill will not hamper the way in which the art market operates.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2016; Vol. 616, c. 700.]
The closest existing legislation to the current Bill is the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) referred earlier. It is concerned with illegally removed archaeological material and objects that have been taken illegally from monuments or historical structures. However, unlike the Bill—in which the types of cultural property covered are extensive and could even include cultural property in people’s family collections—the 2003 Act does not cover works of purely artistic interest. The Act states:
“A person is guilty of an offence if he dishonestly deals in a cultural object that is tainted, knowing or believing that the object is tainted.”
Sir Edward Garnier
My hon. Friend refers to the 2003 Act. She and I will recall that the genesis of the Act was the ministerial advisory panel’s report on illicit trade, which was published in 2000. The report suggested that the gap in the Theft Act 1968 should be filled by what became the 2003 Act and by the “knowing or believing” test for mens rea. Is it not a pity that the Government do not seem to remember that, and that they seem to be moving down a different route?
Victoria Borwick
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving us the benefit of his experience, which I hope will prompt the Government to reconsider.
As the British Art Market Federation and others have stated, the existing statutes mean that a dealer acting with honest intent and conducting reasonable due diligence is highly unlikely to run the risk of prosecution, unless it can be shown that they have wilfully acted dishonestly. I understand that the Government have cited article 21 of the second protocol of the convention as justification for a lower level of mens rea, but I draw my hon. Friend the Minister’s attention to article 15 of the protocol, which indicates that an offence has occurred if a person intentionally commits an act of theft or misappropriation against cultural property protected under the convention. Surely that suggests that an element of dishonest criminal intent is required by the convention. I seek that assurance. If the Bill were to introduce a lower threshold of mens rea, that would amount to gold-plating, which appears to run counter to Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s assurances in the other place that
“the Government intend to do only what is necessary to meet our obligations under the convention and its protocols.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. 586.]
For all those reasons, I am concerned that the words “having reason to suspect” are inappropriate. Terms such as “believing” or even “suspecting” carry greater certainty and clarity. I emphasise that this is a point of law; it does not weaken or water down the Bill. We all understand that the objective is squarely to target those with criminal intent. I ask the Minister to consider these views and those of the art and antiques industry when drawing up the detailed regulations that will ensue from this legislation.
Mr Burrowes
It is a pleasure to take part in the later proceedings of this important Bill. I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cultural heritage; it is excellent to see the Bill on its way and at long last to enable our ratification of The Hague convention, which will be very welcome. Having said that, I very much respect this level of scrutiny and the concerns outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Victoria Borwick). We also had exchanges on this issue in the Bill Committee. I welcome that because the concern among dealers has been outlined, not least to the all-party parliamentary group.
The British Antique Dealers Association, the British Art Market Federation, the Antiquities Dealers Association and LAPADA all made considered written representations, which need to be fully respected, and I join them in wanting to ensure confidence in the market. The last thing we want to happen is for the Bill in any way to provide uncertainty or ambiguity in the codes of practice and guidance, which are very welcome—they are welcomed not least by the all-party parliamentary group. We want London to be the centre of excellence for dealers’ associations, and we want there to be true confidence in the market.
The all-party parliamentary group has deliberated on some of the scaremongering stories out there. We recognise that the London dealers’ market has a very good record, and we want to ensure continuing confidence in that market. I have due respect for the concerns that have been expressed, and I look forward to further roundtable meetings and the publishing of guidance.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, a former Law Officer, pleaded for guidance to be published at this stage. As he will know, some of us who scrutinised the Bill in Committee, including the shadow Justice team, are on his side in pleading for such guidance to be published before the end of our proceedings. Sadly, those pleas have been made in vain in some ways. I share his concern that there should be as much transparency as possible.
It is important to recognise that other stakeholders are concerned about amending clause 17. Although the antiquities and antiques dealers’ associations are important and must be listened to, we must also listen to the police. I understand that police representatives have said that they support the Bill as currently drafted. I have an interest as a criminal defence solicitor, and I am not necessarily surprised that the police support the current wording, but it is worth taking account of other interested parties, such as the British Red Cross and the British Museum.
Sir Edward Garnier
I was puzzled by the reference to the British Red Cross in a letter from the Minister, so I checked it with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and she, too, was a little puzzled by the reference. I am not sure that the Red Cross has anything whatever to do with this. This is all about preventing the unlawful trade in items unlawfully exported from occupied territory. The Red Cross has lots of things to worry about, but I am not sure its main aim in life is supporting this Bill.
Mr Burrowes
I do not often disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend, but the British Red Cross has a great deal of interest because, in many ways, it is the pre-eminent body in dealing with issues of international humanitarian law. What we are doing here is ratifying The Hague convention, in which the Red Cross plays a crucial role.
I quoted Mr Michael Meyer, the head of international law at the British Red Cross, in Committee. If you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will repeat what I quoted because it is of direct relevance:
“However, it appears that, in practice, the clause should place no greater burden on dealers than already exists to conduct appropriate due diligence. In other words, the threshold of ‘reason to suspect’ is not so low as to have an adverse impact on the legitimate market, while at the same time acting as a necessary and suitable deterrent for those who may be less scrupulous. The wording is somewhat similar to that used in the existing Iraq and Syria sanctions orders. There is also very similar wording found in section 17 of New Zealand’s Cultural Property (Protection in Armed Conflict) Act 2012.”
That Act followed New Zealand’s ratification of The Hague convention. What that international lawyer says is relevant because, although I respect the well-made point that this Parliament is considering how the convention is applied domestically through our courts, we are catching up on ratifying The Hague convention and setting ourselves on an equal footing from an international legal standing. I pray that in aid.
I am arguing against myself to some extent here, but I recognise that if we were dealing with a simple issue relating to another dishonesty offence being added to the criminal legal handbook, I would be joining my right hon. and learned Friend in expressing concern about the disparity on mens rea in respect of this offence and the normal panoply of dishonesty offences. However, we are dealing with a unique offence in unique circumstances.
The shadow Minister made a point about the impact assessment and the view that there will be one prosecution. That is relevant because we are talking about an exceptional prosecution in respect of an exceptional piece of property that comes through to the market in this country and how it is then dealt with. We should therefore not overstate the concern, and we need to take into account the confidence of the market. We are dealing with exceptional cases, which need to be dealt with appropriately and carefully. That is why we need to have regard for what is already in place, not least how other cases are dealt with in international practice and how we have applied other relevant legislation.
Sir Edward Garnier
Does it follow from what my hon. Friend is saying that he does not know whether any convictions under the statutory instrument have been for the “knowing” or for having “had no reason to suppose”? He does not know either way, does he?
Mr Burrowes
What I do know either way is that no antiquities dealer has come forward about being unjustly convicted and there has not been a campaign about such. None seems to have been unjustly convicted under this order—or there has been no evidence that there has been an iniquity in relation to an arrest, prosecution or seizure under the order or, indeed, under the other relevant provision, the European Union Council regulation on Syrian cultural property. That refers to
“Syrian cultural property goods and other goods of archaeological…importance…where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the goods have been removed from Syria without the consent of their legitimate owner”.
Again, I am not aware of any antiquities dealer having fallen foul of those provisions, with the complaint being that the net is cast too widely.
I concede that, in terms of mens rea, there is a difference between normal dishonesty offences and this particular offence, but in respect of the actual impact of the Bill, I am not aware of a serious problem. Rather, the answer is that, with the appropriate legal advice and the due diligence that one would expect of any decent, law-abiding antiquities dealer, they will be able to chart their way through the legislation.
Another relevant aspect is international practice. We are in the process of ratifying The Hague convention and putting ourselves into line internationally. It is important to refer to paragraph 7 of UN Security Council resolution 1483, which came into being on 22 May 2003 and is obviously binding on all UN member states. It was made in direct response to the looting of cultural institutions in the immediate wake of the invasion of Iraq. All member states signed up to taking
“appropriate steps to facilitate the safe return to Iraqi institutions of Iraqi cultural property and other items of archaeological, historical, cultural, rare scientific, and religious importance illegally removed from the Iraq National Museum, the National Library, and other locations”.
Paragraph 7 says specifically that that should be done
“by establishing a prohibition on trade in or transfer of such items and items with respect to which reasonable suspicion exists that they have been illegally removed”.
Similar wording is used in United Nations resolutions.
That similarity continued in paragraph 17 of UN Security Council resolution 2199, from 12 February 2015. Again, it is binding on UN member states. It was adopted in direct response to the looting of Iraqi and Syrian cultural property in the course of the ongoing armed conflicts in those states. The Security Council reaffirmed its decision and recognised that there was a corresponding obligation for cultural property illegally removed from Syria since 15 March 2011. On the standard of knowledge considered sufficient by the Security Council, of which the UK is of course a permanent member—we want to ensure we are right up there in terms of signing up to ratifying the two protocols—there was the same equivalence in relation to reasonable suspicion.
Victoria Borwick
On the point about the uncertainties, perhaps the Minister will clarify whether the legislation is going to be retrospective. Is it going to apply to items that are imported in future, or to items that are currently in the country? Alternatively, will it apply only to what happens after the Bill is passed? We are talking about items that move from country to country, particularly those in areas of potential conflict, so it would be helpful if there was clarity in the Bill about the date on which an item was imported.
Mr Burrowes
I am happy to facilitate the Minister’s being able to respond to that question.
On 18 January 2012, before the adoption of paragraph 17 of Security Council resolution 2199, an EU Council regulation emphasised the same points made in the Security Council resolutions. It referred to situations in which
“there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the goods have been removed from Syria without the consent of their legitimate owner or have been removed in breach of Syrian law or international law”.
The amendments have been tabled in good faith and are well intentioned, and in ordinary circumstances I would think they were well merited and had substance. In this particular case, however, given the context, I do not think they are necessary or, indeed, desirable, especially when one takes into account the international best practice or hears from stakeholders such as the Red Cross and the British Museum. I shall conclude with the words of the latter:
“We feel it is particularly important that there is no watering down of responsibilities or requirements in the Bill. Specifically, we feel that in regard to the Clause 17…it is imperative that the working should remain ‘knowing or having reason to suspect that it has been unlawfully exported’”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this good debate on Report. I propose to respond to the amendments in the order in which they have been grouped.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for his explanation of amendment 4. He and Lord Stevenson have been passionate about ensuring that digital property is protected—I congratulate them on their efforts. The hon. Gentleman raised really interesting points about the risk of cyber-attacks. We should always be vigilant in protecting against and resisting such attacks. This is a complex and, indeed, developing area, but the amendment is both unnecessary and inappropriate. It is unnecessary because we consider that article 15 of the second protocol is already capable of covering cyber-attacks in the context of an armed conflict. As clause 3 is drafted with reference to article 15, the Bill is also able to cover such attacks.
The amendment is inappropriate because the precise meaning of article 15 is a matter of international law and we should not seek to elaborate on its meaning. The amendment would risk creating a divergence in meaning between our own law and international law, and not only would that be unhelpful, but it could ultimately place us in breach of our international obligations. Clause 3 as drafted is sufficient to implement the convention effectively in the UK, so I must oppose the amendment.
Let me briefly address the other issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about digital property. The roundtable on implementation took place on 5 December with representatives from the heritage and museum sectors, and experts in cultural property protection. On the subject of the cultural emblem, we discussed its digital display, which stakeholders broadly welcome. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that digital issues will continue to be fully considered as part of the ongoing discussions about this particular aspect of the Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendment 5, not least because it allows me to highlight the tremendous work of our armed forces on cultural property protection. Our military already take the protection of the world’s cultural heritage very seriously. Not only is respect for cultural property upheld across the UK’s armed forces and reinforced in policy and training, but the joint military cultural property protection working group provides an important focal point for progressing numerous aspects of cultural property protection.
Planning for the new military cultural property protection unit is continuing apace. The unit will ensure that cultural property is protected from damage and looting, and it will provide advice, training and support across our armed forces. I am sure that the whole House will join me in commending this important work.
Amendment 5 would extend the UK’s jurisdiction over the offences described in sub-paragraphs (d) and (e) of article 15.1 of the second protocol. If it were passed, foreign nationals committing those offences abroad would be subject to our jurisdiction if they were serving under the military command of the UK armed forces. This issue was raised in Committee and, to be helpful, I will be more than happy to set out our position again. Before I do so, however, let me respond to the hon. Gentleman about the reply he received from the Minister for the Armed Forces regarding the number of foreign personnel embedded in UK armed forces. That is a matter for the Ministry of Defence, and I am really sorry to say that I have nothing further to add to that correspondence.
In Committee, I stated that we should not extend our jurisdiction beyond our obligations under the convention and protocols. Clause 4(3)(b) currently covers all those subject to UK service jurisdiction, regardless of nationality. Although that is not expressly required by article 16(1), it does no more than reflect the existing position under the Armed Forces Act 2006. This is quite a different matter to extending jurisdiction to all foreign nationals serving under UK military command, which would be inappropriate. It is important that we respect the service jurisdictions of our allies in relation to their personnel when they are embedded in the UK military, as we rightly expect our service jurisdiction to be respected when our own service personnel are embedded in the forces of another state.
Such arrangements are often reciprocal. If we try to impose UK jurisdiction on foreign embedded forces, other states will be less willing to allow UK forces to be embedded with them. Clearly, that would be detrimental to the operation of UK armed forces. As I explained in Committee, these arrangements are reflected in status of forces agreements or memorandums of understanding, and a foreign soldier committing a serious violation would be dismissed and returned to their sending state. It should also be remembered that, as required by the convention and protocols, jurisdiction over the acts described in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) of article 15.1 of the second protocol already extends to all foreign nationals committing the gravest offences abroad.
The scope of jurisdiction set out in clause 3(4) is in line with that required by the second protocol, taking into account existing provision in the 2006 Act. This ensures that all people subject to UK service jurisdiction can rightly be prosecuted on the same basis, regardless of nationality. To go any further would be to interfere needlessly with the service jurisdictions of our allies in a manner that would be at odds with standard military practices. Given that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff West will not press amendments 4 and 5 to a Division.
Sir Edward Garnier
The Minister’s point is confusing. She says that the examples she gave do not provide reason to suspect. In fact, they provide reason to suspect, but it might be that that suspicion is not true. That is the distinction that the Government fail to understand.
Tracey Crouch
But my point is that this issue already exists in the art market—the Bill does not alter that at all. Art market dealers should be carrying out due diligence in all cases. The hypothetical circumstances and examples that have been given make no difference as to whether such cases are covered by the Bill or by existing legislation. The Government consider that the offence as drafted is the most appropriate way to achieve the protection needed to deter people from unlawfully importing exported cultural property into the UK.
The offence created by clause 17 is consistent with similar offences created by the Iraq and Syria sanctions orders, which use “reason to suppose” and “reasonable grounds to suspect” as the basis for determining criminal liability. The offences in the sanction orders are the most appropriate comparators for the offence created in the Bill, as they also deal with cultural property that is unlawfully removed from conflict zones. We therefore refute the suggestion that the drafting of the Bill is novel or contentious, as some have suggested. The Iraq sanctions order has been in place since 2003, and the Syria sanctions order since 2013, and they have not had an adverse impact on the art market. While I hear what my right hon. and learned Friend says about the fact that they are statutory instruments, they are still the law. The fact is that they have not had an adverse impact on the art market, and we still think they are the best comparators.
Thirdly, key stakeholders, including the police, academics, museums and the Council for British Archaeology, support us in our view that the threshold is appropriate. One leading academic, Professor Roger O’Keefe of University College London, has confirmed his view that the drafting of the offence reflects international best practice, as was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). Furthermore, we have discussed the issue at length with art market stakeholders, and we have listened to their concerns carefully, but they have provided no clear evidence that the mens rea in the Bill would create insurmountable problems for the market or increase the due diligence that dealers need to undertake. It will, however, provide a deterrent for those unscrupulous dealers who might be tempted to deal in unlawfully exported cultural property.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough also mentioned guidance. To reassure those with concerns on this issue, we made a commitment to work with art market stakeholders, with a view to providing guidance where necessary to assist the art market in understanding the new dealing offence and complying with the Bill. My officials are taking that forward with art market stakeholders, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. A meeting to discuss the issue was held last week, and a further meeting is planned for 1 March.
With that, I hope my colleagues are reassured and feel that they do not need to press their amendments to clauses 3 and 17.
Amendment 4 negatived.
Third Reading
Queen’s consent signified.
Tracey Crouch
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Today is an important milestone in our drive to protect cultural property not only in this country but around the world, and particularly in places where it is threatened by armed conflict. The 1954 Hague convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict and its two protocols are an important part of the international legal framework for protecting cultural property. Since 2004, successive Governments have promised to bring forward the legislation required to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention and accede to the protocols. I am delighted that this Government have finally been able to do so, and I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) for securing time for the Bill in this Session.
The Bill, together with The Hague convention and its protocols, fits into the wider framework of our initiatives to protect cultural property. I recently had the pleasure of visiting the British Museum to learn more about its Iraq emergency heritage management training scheme, which is helping to build capacity in the Iraqi state board of antiquities and heritage by training staff in a wide range of sophisticated techniques of retrieval and rescue archaeology. The scheme is supported by £3 million from our new cultural protection fund. That fund, which is managed by the British Council, is so far supporting nine projects to the tune of £8.8 million, using British knowledge and expertise in places where cultural heritage is at risk.
The first group of Iraqi participants completed their training in November. One of them has already been appointed by the Iraqi state board to lead the assessment of the site of Nimrud, which was recently liberated from Daesh control. The second group of participants is now in training at the British Museum, and I am delighted that they are in the Public Gallery to witness our debate and the passing of this important Bill.
Mr Burrowes
I commend the Minister on navigating us through to this stage. She has now become an international advocate, having travelled to conferences to extol the virtues of our commitment to cultural property. Will she also pay tribute to Professor Peter Stone of Newcastle University and the UK Committee of the Blue Shield, who want us to establish a centre of excellence for the collection and sharing of information on threats to cultural property worldwide? We are an exemplar on that, and we could perhaps do more with more funding.
Tracey Crouch
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I am sure that the Prime Minister was paying close attention to our proceedings in Committee, during which my hon. Friend asked me to consider going to Abu Dhabi for an international convention on cultural property, because, shortly after he made that request, the Prime Minister wrote to ask me to attend that convention. I am really pleased that I went to that excellent convention. I met some leading figures from around the world, including the head of UNESCO, and the event gave us an opportunity to show that the UK is leading the way on this matter. I will come to my hon. Friend’s point about praising Professor Stone later.
The creation of the new cultural property protection unit in the British Army—a modern-day version of the famous monuments men, and of course women—will ensure that respect for and protection of cultural property is embedded in our armed forces. The unit is expected to consist of between 10 and 20 specialist reserve officers. It will provide advice, training and support across the armed forces, ensure that cultural property is protected from damage and looting, and be able to investigate, record and report cultural property issues from any area of operations. I congratulate Lieutenant Colonel Tim Purbrick on his work so far to develop this unit, and I look forward to following its progress.
Those initiatives are ensuring that the United Kingdom is a world leader in the protection of cultural property. Passing this Bill, and becoming a state party to The Hague convention and both its protocols, will cement that position. The Bill introduces into UK law the provisions that are necessary to ensure that we are able to comply with the convention and protocols when they come into force. Together, they provide protection for the most important cultural property—that which is of the greatest importance for the cultural heritage of every people. As I confirmed in Committee and in my subsequent letter to hon. Members on 19 December, the definition of cultural property set out in the convention is broad and flexible. It could include cultural property on film and in digital form, provided that it satisfies the requirement of being of the greatest importance for the cultural heritage of every people. The Bill makes it an offence to attack or destroy such cultural property during armed conflict, in violation of the convention or second protocol. It regulates use of the cultural emblem—the internationally recognised sign used to identify cultural property that is protected by the convention. It also makes it an offence to deal in unlawfully exported cultural property from an occupied territory, and ensures that we are able to protect cultural property that is brought to this country from areas of conflict until it can be returned.
This has been my first Bill as a Minister. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to be responsible for such an important measure that has become so widely and internationally welcomed and supported, not just in Parliament but beyond. The Bill has been well debated and scrutinised in both Houses. I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to our proceedings. I thank Opposition Front Benchers, particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for their support. I also thank the Whips and the Clerks for their assistance. Looking back, I thank the Culture, Media and Sport Committee for its scrutiny of the draft legislation in 2008. At that time, the Committee was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon, who championed this cause by ensuring that we could introduce the Bill during this Session. I thank the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who have been fully supportive of the Bill. This has been an excellent example of us working together as one United Kingdom to achieve a common goal on an issue of great importance to us all.
My thanks also go to the many stakeholders who have advised and supported us during the preparation and passage of this Bill: academics, particularly Professor Roger O’Keefe and Professor Peter Stone; the police, including Chief Constable Paul Crowther and his team; specialist agencies such as the Red Cross—I am pleased that Michael Meyer is in the Gallery today to show his support—and many other representative organisations. They have all contributed their specialist knowledge and expertise, which has been most welcome and much appreciated.
Last but not least, I thank the officials who have worked on this Bill—not only those who have supported me and my ministerial colleagues in taking the Bill through Parliament, but their predecessors who worked on these issues, drew up the draft Bill 10 years ago, and ensured that that was not forgotten but was ready when a place was found for it in the legislative programme. Their efforts have finally borne fruit, and it is only right that we should acknowledge their contribution.
Passing the Bill moves us one step closer to finally ratifying The Hague convention, acceding to the protocols and, I hope, achieving our aim of becoming the first permanent member of the United Nations Security Council to do so. Indeed, it seems that our initiative in introducing the Bill might well have encouraged France and China to begin their own procedure to accede to the second protocol, proving once again that the UK is the world leader in the protection of cultural property.
We look forward to continuing to work closely with our partners and stakeholders to develop and enhance the protection of cultural property in this country and around the world. It has taken 60 years for us to get around to ratifying The Hague convention. The Bill has been waiting for almost 10 years to get on the statute book. That it is finally on the verge of becoming law is true testament to this Government’s commitment to protecting the world’s cultural heritage.
Although I have acknowledged that the Bill seeks to protect a limited class of cultural property, it should not be lost on Members that, in passing it, we will be taking essential steps to protect the world’s most pre-eminent cultural heritage for the benefit of all people and future generations. At a time when cultural property is facing global danger, that cannot happen soon enough. I commend the Bill to the House.
Kevin Brennan
I echo all the thanks given by the Minister. I also note our achievement in saving A-level art history along the way as well. We raised the issue on Second Reading and managed to save the Government from themselves, so this outbreak of cross-party collaboration has been worth while.
We do not oppose the Bill, as we have said all along. On the contrary, we are very proud to support the ratification of the 1954 Hague convention. The Bill has been 63 years in the making and I am pleased that the ratification of the convention will show that protecting cultural property is a UK priority. Culture is essential to society. It is not an added luxury. It preserves our past, inspires our future and enriches us as human beings.
The convention is particularly laudable in its internationalism and collectivism, and in its acknowledgement that the culture of one is important to the culture of all across the world. As has been pointed out many times during our debates, the process of ratifying the convention has been done on a cross-party basis in this House and in the other place. The process was begun by the last Labour Government. Unfortunately it was not completed by 2010, but I thank my colleagues and former colleagues for putting the issue on the national agenda as far back as 2004 and for publishing a draft Bill in 2008. In 2015, the Government announced their intention to ratify the convention, and thanks are due to the right hon. Members for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the former Secretary of State, and for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who played a part at that stage.
Likewise, I thank the Minister for her contributions in this Chamber and in Committee; for her responses to the sometimes annoying amendments that we tabled in Committee; and for granting us access to her officials during the course of the Bill, which was extremely helpful. The Bill is about co-operation and mutual respect, so it was entirely appropriate that we co-operated across party lines in order to get it on the statute book. The way in which the Minister has steered the Bill through and the courteous manner in which she has conducted herself throughout the debates is a useful example that all Ministers in her Department and others should follow.
Likewise, we should thank all those individuals and organisations that submitted evidence and participated in discussions, as well as those who campaigned for the convention’s ratification in the intervening years. I also thank my colleagues in the other place, particularly Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Collins of Highbury, for their robust and informed questioning as the Bill went through its respective stages in the House of Lords.
I am also grateful for the previous work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for the work of the Clerks, Hansard reporters and Door Keepers in making possible the passage of the Bill.
Before our debate comes to an end, I want to re-emphasise a point I made on Second Reading that, in the light of recent events, has sadly become even more relevant. The destruction of Palmyra in Syria has been mentioned many times during our debates as a tragedy and an outrage that made clear the importance of ratifying a convention that pledges to protect cultural property, even if it does not directly apply to that circumstance.
While the Bill was proceeding through its stages, the Government recently announced their plan to suspend the scheme inspired by Lord Dubs’s amendment and to stop accepting unaccompanied young refugees. All of us who strongly support the Bill would assent to the notion that Governments should be judged principally on how they treat people, rather than how they treat palaces. I hope that rather than being an inconsistency, the passage of the Bill will mark a turning point in this Government’s thinking. We should extend to Syrian people fleeing conflict and seeking refuge the same respect and protection that we are offering to their ancient architecture.
Again, we are proud to support the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill. It is not often that the House is united in passing a Bill of such historical significance with such a degree of consensus, and I also welcome the support of SNP colleagues throughout this process. I hope that the passage of the Bill gives the UK an opportunity to demonstrate international leadership and to create a legacy of which all of us can be proud.
Sir Edward Garnier
I thought, listening to all these paeans of praise, that I had wandered into the BAFTAs, but they are well placed, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister. She says it is the first Bill she has conducted through this place as a Minister, and I hope it is not the last. I wish her every success.
That having been said, as we used to say, this is not simply formulaic; there is a purpose in having a Third Reading debate, albeit that such debates are now very truncated and that as I think we all agree, apart from my point of disagreement, this is a wholly uncontroversial and utterly worthwhile Bill. Its genesis was several decades before my hon. Friend was even a twinkle in her parents’ eyes; sadly, I am older than the convention, but there we are. Perhaps I am a cultural object.
Sir Edward Garnier
I know I am a treasure, but the Minister is so kind.
I will make three quick points, if I may. First, it is important not to confuse evidence for an offence with the definition of an offence. Those are two different legal concepts, and in our enthusiasm to pass this Bill into law, we are in danger of allowing that confusion to remain. Despite the fact that I accept the political reality, I think clause 17(1) is and remains flawed, and I am not yet convinced that what the Government propose is the right answer, but there we are, I have lost that particular argument.
Secondly, I hope we will see the guidance for prosecutors and the police soon. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) said, Governments often talk about guidance and secondary legislation is often drafted to achieve clarity. It is no good just saying things; we need to do things. I hope that we will see the guidance long before the end of the summer, and that it will be available to be considered in published form.
Thirdly and finally, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to press the Foreign Office to come up with some form of definition of “occupied territories”. It is a movable feast, and I appreciate that the facts on the ground and the law relating to the status of particular parts of the world change almost week by week. However, if there is to be guidance on whether it is appropriate to prosecute under clause 17(1) for “having reason to suspect”, we equally need guidance on what an occupied territory is as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.
Victoria Borwick
As president of the British Antique Dealers’ Association, I know, as I have said previously, that the arts and antiques industry fully supports the aims of the Bill. There are still areas of concern, however, which have been mentioned. In particular, it is important that honest and well intentioned dealers and auction houses do not risk criminal prosecution when conducting reasonable due diligence. We have discussed the aspects of the Bill concerning the trade that relate to avoiding uncertainty in the art market and ensuring clarity in the practical operation of the law. There is no doubt that uncertainty hampers any market. It is reassuring that the Minister has made it clear on the Floor of the House today and previously that she does not want the market to be hampered. I thank her for that assurance.
The clause 17 offence of dealing in unlawfully exported property depends directly on the clarity and understanding of what is meant in the Bill by the term “cultural property”. As it stands, the punctuation that is used in article 1(a) of the convention, which is reproduced in schedule 1, means that cultural property is not limited to
“property of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people”.
Although the Minister has previously reassured us that cultural property can be protected if it is of great importance to every people, the market seeks absolute clarification on these points, as has been said by other hon. Members. Other categories of property are covered by the definition, regardless of their cultural significance, including
“works of art; manuscripts, books and other objects of artistic, historical or archaeological interest”.
I am delighted that the Minister today confirmed her statement in the House of 31 October that the Government intend to take the same restricted approach to the definition of “cultural property” and that the clause 17 offence of dealing in unlawfully exported property will apply to only a very small but special category of cultural objects—those that are of great importance to the cultural heritage of every people.
Another area of uncertainty is an auctioneer or dealer’s ability to identify the occupied territories to which the law applies, particularly if an item may have been here previously. Of course, a lot of trading goes on between countries all the time. That is why the points that have been made about certainty and the dates of an occupied territory need to be clarified.
Clause 16 states that the Secretary of State’s confirmation that a territory was occupied is “conclusive evidence” of that status once legal proceedings have begun. If the Secretary of State’s word may be provided after the beginning of proceedings, cannot the list of occupied territories, together with the relevant dates of occupation, be drawn up for all to see? Alternatively, could the criteria that the Secretary of State would apply when determining whether and when a country is considered to have been occupied be clarified? I could add to the list east Jerusalem, the west bank, northern Iraq, Libya or southern Sudan. I am sure that other countries could be added. For the avoidance of doubt, art and antique dealers need to know at what point since 1954 a particular territory is covered by the legislation, and whether or not that will be retrospective.
Even if those operating in the art market can identify the territories and the periods when they were considered to be occupied, there is the added issue of determining whether objects left those territories during the period of occupation or at another time, and whether those objects were here before, during or after that period. We need that clarity. The precise historical date or year when an object left a territory could well be difficult to ascertain, which is why the trade asks for clarity in and guidance on the final definitions. We are talking about territories that were deemed to be occupied prior to 1954, so surely this is historical and factual information that should be readily available to the arts and antiques trade, and others, to provide absolute clarity.
In 2008, the Government’s response to the territory question was that a dealer who had carried out proper due diligence checks would be unlikely to be convicted of a criminal offence. I urge the Minister to ensure that that response is clarified and brought up to date.
The Government added that they were unaware of any other parties to the convention having drawn up such a list. I struggle to understand how a law concerned solely with objects unlawfully exported from occupied territories can be expected to operate effectively when there is no means by which anyone is able to identify those territories. Do the Government expect a dealer or auction house to submit requests for confirmation of a territory’s status to the Secretary of State on a case-by-case basis, prior to handling an antique, as part of their due diligence? I urge the Government to prepare a list of the territories covered and the relevant dates, so that proper guidance can be given. As the application is retrospective to 1954, that information must be available and must be a point of record. I ask the Minister to consider these points and others when preparing the regulations governing the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed, without amendment.
High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments 2 to 54.
Andrew Jones
Let me say right away that the majority of the amendments are technical clarifications, corrections and updated references. The Government accept all the amendments to the Bill made by the Lords. I will provide some comment on the amendments of substance. Before I do so, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the Lords for its scrutiny of the Bill. I pay particular gratitude to Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon for having very skilfully steered the passage of the Bill through the other place, and to my noble Friends Lord Viscount Younger and Baroness Buscombe for their diligent work in assisting Lord Ahmad during the Lords stages of the Bill. It would be most remiss of me not also to thank Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe for his distinguished chairmanship of the Select Committee that considered the petitions against the Bill in the Lords, and to thank the other members of the Committee.
Lords amendments 1 and 2 were introduced by the Lords Select Committee and concern the removal of a strip of land in the Chelmsley Wood area of Solihull from the Bill. The Government were proposing to acquire the land to re-provide public open space for local residents. However, the Lords Select Committee concluded that this was not necessary. As we set out in the Government’s response to the Lords Select Committee report, the Government regret that that means that the residents of Chelmsley Wood are to lose permanently a portion of public open space, but we will be working with Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to consider, within the limits and the powers of the Bill, reasonable ways in which to reduce the temporary impact of construction and the permanent impacts of the operation of the railway. Clearly, any solutions agreed that fall outside the limits and powers of the Bill will be for Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council to deliver in its role as the local planning authority.
Lords amendment 4 was also introduced by the Lords Select Committee. It removes the power in clause 48 that made provisions for the Secretary of State to promote a compulsory purchase order to acquire land for regeneration purposes related to High Speed 2. It was always intended that the power would be used only as a backstop if commercial negotiations failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion and if a significant regeneration opportunity would otherwise be lost. However, the Lords felt that given the broad nature of the powers and the fact that local authorities already had similar powers, it was unnecessary for the Government to take the powers. The Government accept that ruling and will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that opportunities for regeneration arising from phase 1 of HS2 are not missed.
Amendments 3, 51 and 52 introduce a new clause and schedule in relation to traffic regulation orders. TROs are a mechanism for local highways authorities to impose temporary or permanent restrictions on the use of highways in their areas in order to control traffic. Local highways authorities will need to make a range of TROs in relation to the construction of HS2. They will also need to ensure that they do not make TROs that conflict with the construction of HS2. The amendments ensure that local highways authorities will be required to consult with the Secretary of State for Transport before making any orders that affect either a specific road identified for use by HS2 or other roads related to HS2 construction works. This will avoid TROs being made that might otherwise inadvertently cause problems for the construction of phase 1 of HS2.
The amendments also allow the Secretary of State, if required, to make TROs himself and prohibit or revoke TROs that unnecessarily hinder the delivery of the railway. These powers are similar to those that the Secretary of State already has under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and will ensure that TROs necessary to deliver phase 1 of HS2 in a timely and economic manner can be made.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I appreciate that there would be a desire, particularly in central London, to prevent any local transport authority, whether the local authority or Transport for London, from frustrating the building of the railway, but will the Minister give an assurance that the Secretary of State’s powers will be used sparingly? In London we already have democratically elected authorities, through the local authorities and Transport for London, that are able to represent the public interest in this regard, so it is a slight concern that the Secretary of State could use the powers less sparingly than might be desirable for democratic accountability.
Andrew Jones
My right hon. Friend makes an important point and I can give him the assurance he is looking for. The powers would only ever be used in a very sparing way, as he suggests is appropriate. Basically, the right way forward is for HS2 and the Department and local highways authorities to work together to agree some kind of consensus; these are just powers that might be necessary should situations arise. An example of success in that would be Camden, where there has been agreement between the borough council and the Department and HS2 Ltd on how to take forward the TROs required.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Although we may be seeking consensus, if there is disagreement, these provisions would ultimately give the Department for Transport the power to proceed by fiat and override the local authority or, indeed, local residents’ concerns, would they not?
Andrew Jones
The Bill certainly does give the Secretary of State the power, if required, to make TROs himself and to prohibit or revoke TROs that unnecessarily hinder the delivery of the railway. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is therefore yes, but we cannot allow a significant national project to be held up over the small matter of a TRO. As I have said, the best thing to do is to work with the highways authorities; these are some backstop powers, just in case that does not deliver the consensus required.
The powers were subject to significant debate and amendment in the House of Lords, and I am glad to say that the powers we are considering this evening represent the correct balance between giving the Secretary of State the powers necessary to construct HS2 and providing reassurance to local highways authorities about how they will used. Clearly, we hope there will be little or no need to rely on them, as the regular meetings established with local highways authorities will be used to consult, agree, monitor and generally supervise the local traffic management plans. However, the powers are needed to ensure that, if those arrangements fail, HS2 can be delivered in an efficient manner.
The remainder of the amendments make technical clarifications in relation to the changes to the Housing and Planning Act 2016, update references and make corrections. I urge the House to agree to the Lords amendments.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am pleased to contribute to the progress of the Bill once again. I was fortunate enough to have been able to contribute to it in Committee, and I know the Minister will share my enthusiasm for the fact that this Bill will soon receive Royal Assent. High Speed 2 is, of course, the brainchild of a Labour Government, but I give credit to the coalition Government and the present Government for providing continuing support.
Mr Spellar
For purposes of clarification, HS2 was the brainchild of the last year of the last Labour Government. All previous Transport Ministers had treated it with considerable scepticism.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s clarification, but if a party is in power, it is in power. Whether or not this happened in 2009 or 2010, Labour were still the Government of the day.
There are some points of disagreement between the Opposition and the Government on HS2—I shall return to them later—but the consensus that exists across the House and among businesses and industry experts on HS2 is to be welcomed. Projects of this scale often require the support of successive Governments and support from the Government and Opposition Benches, so it is reassuring to see a consistent approach to this critical investment in our nation’s rail infrastructure.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Is not the hon. Gentleman rather ignoring the fact that most Members are not affected by this project, so they show very little interest in it at all? If MPs’ constituencies are affected by the project, Members are of course passionately engaged. In fact, that consensus has really gone by default.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Let me say that our time should be devoted to the amendments, and I am bothered that we might stray into other areas that should not be debated. I have allowed a little latitude, but I do not want us to open up into a general debate. Let us keep to the amendments.
Andy McDonald
Let me just say that this project benefits the entire country in its construction and its reach. I shall leave it there, Mr Deputy Speaker.
HS2 helps to address the severe capacity constraints on our rail network and improve connections between cities in the midlands and the north of England and beyond into Scotland. HS2 is vital for unblocking the capacity constraints that are undermining punctuality and constraining economic growth.
I would like to place on record my thanks to all Secretaries of State and Ministers, shadow Secretaries of State and shadow Ministers and Members of both Houses who have contributed to and carried the Bill forward. I want to pay tribute to all the Clerks who managed the petitioning process and provided invaluable advice and guidance throughout. I would like to pay a particular tribute to the great professionalism and dedication to his task of the late Neil Caulfield, who as Clerk to the Committee was immensely patient and attentive, giving me his time to ensure the smooth progress of the Bill. He is very sadly missed, but not forgotten.
This is a large and complicated Bill and has been subject to the highest levels of scrutiny throughout the process, and we now have a much improved Bill. We will support the Lords amendments to it. The majority of the amendments are without controversy and simply seek to tidy up the measure and make small changes where necessary. It is not necessary to debate them in any detail.
The most significant change to the Bill is the new schedule on traffic regulation, which, given the identified effects of the redevelopment of Euston station, is particularly pertinent for the London Borough of Camden. I acknowledge the consultation that took place following Committee with local highway authorities, which informed the changes to the new schedule. Entirely legitimate concerns were expressed that the new schedule as originally drafted would have given powers that were too wide ranging and could have caused a lack of proper regard for the residents of London—concerns expressed by Camden Borough Council and Transport for London. To a large extent, these concerns were addressed in the changes made to the new schedule, but some issues are still outstanding. I understand that the discussions between the promoter and both TfL and Camden Council are ongoing, and that an undertaking has been negotiated, but not yet received. I understand that the undertaking will say that the use of these powers will not affect bus lanes, cycle ways, the safer lorry scheme and the congestion charge zone.
Is the Minister able to give assurances that the promoter of HS2 will meet the costs incurred by local authorities in putting in place and removing traffic regulation orders required by the Secretary of State? Can he also give assurances that the Secretary of State will be required to provide justification when seeking to use these powers? The powers are needed for construction, but Labour’s position from the start has been that the impacts of construction on affected areas must be mitigated as much as possible, and such assurances would be appreciated. Pursuant to the new traffic regulation, will the Minister tell us what plans the Department has to minimise the number of HGV journeys on London roads, in the interests of the environment and public safety, during the redevelopment of Euston station? No fixed target has been endorsed, and the issue is crucial to London residents.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think that the hon. Gentleman has strayed off the point, but I am sure that he is approaching the end of his speech.
Andy McDonald
There are two more sentences, Mr Deputy Speaker.
HS2 does not have to be a Deutsche Bahn HS2 or an SNCF HS2 or Nederlandse Spoorwegen or Trenitalia state-run HS2, but it can be—if I may paraphrase the Prime Minister—a British red, white and blue HS2, and the Government should guarantee it.
Mrs Gillan
HS2 may well embrace young people’s entire careers, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) suggested, and they will have good careers out of it if it is built. However, I do not underestimate the fortunes being made—by the top echelons of HS2, certainly, but also by people who are benefiting from very lucrative contracts at the taxpayer’s expense.
I presume—and I am hardly surprised—that the Government have accepted the Lords amendments. A number of them correct inaccuracies, many of which have been and continue to be attached to this project, and which have been a source of great anxiety on the part of people directly affected. I join those on both Front Benches in saying thank you to their lordships, who were restricted in what they could do. They were unable to amend the Bill significantly—they could not make any additional provisions—and we are therefore dealing with a group of amendments that the Government are, of course, able to accept in their entirety because they do not do that much to the Bill.
I must say that I would welcome the acceptance of Lords amendment 4, which I call the “land grab” amendment, because it would limit the power of the state to acquire land compulsorily in association with the project for the purposes of regeneration or development. I think it fair to say that the current Secretary of State for Transport, when lobbied by me and by many others—particularly the CLA—responded very positively. Such a sweeping power would have added insult to injury, namely the plundering of property that has resulted from a project that is as ravenous for land as it is for taxpayers’ money. Without the amendment, the Government would have been able to buy up land for lucrative developments virtually without control.
However, some of my constituents have serious concerns about schedule 16. They believe that HS2 has only to give 28 days’ notice to enter, do what it likes to the land and pay no compensation until the job is finished, which they believe could take many years. During those years, my constituents would have to shoulder the loss of value to property and income. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) believes that there are constituents fighting to prove that they are affected by HS2, whose applications for compensation have been successful, but who are still struggling to agree on a value for their property. When the Minister responds to these amendments, I wonder whether he will care to say something in relation to that and this land grab amendment, which I am grateful the Government are accepting.
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. and learned Friend intervenes from a sedentary position, and he is right that this is an anti-land grab amendment.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I, as much as anybody else, have supported the right hon. Lady for a long time in respect of this scheme, and she raises an important point. I have constituents who cannot get a penny of compensation because they do not meet the necessary requirements. I think something very serious should be done about that, and I hope the right hon. Lady agrees.
Mrs Gillan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and this is what has worried me about this project: it has been a David and Goliath project, and Goliath has won. It has crushed the spirit of so many people, and it is going to affect people who do not yet know how they are going to be affected. I worry for the years of disruption that will come, as I will discuss later.
Amendment 7 will improve the reporting on vocational qualifications, but when it comes to personnel—this is an amendment about personnel—a project such as this should have had continuity and strong leadership. Far from that, there have been three Prime Ministers, five Secretaries of State, four permanent secretaries and three chief executives over the past six years. Young people joining this project to obtain the vocational qualifications that amendment 7 reflects will want assurances that the personnel and training functions are being run by reputable contractors and a reputable organisation.
Questions are being asked about the relationships between the Department, HS2 and contractors such as CH2M. CH2M has already been paid hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in connection with this project and its director has been placed in temporary charge since the very highly paid Simon Kirby departed to Rolls-Royce. It has had so-called Chinese walls during the latest bidding process and now another director of the same company has been appointed as the new permanent CEO on less money than the departing CEO.
We read reports in the Financial Times this morning that the losing bidders on phase two are considering legal action because CH2M could well have been party to information from the CH2M professionals embedded in HS2 on phase one. I ask the Minister to clarify this: he needs to give assurances, or else the pall of suspicion will continue to hang over the top personnel of this project and will affect those young people referred to in amendment 7, whose vocational qualifications are going to be reported on.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The right hon. Lady knows very well that she is stretching not the patience of the Chair, but the terms of the debate in order to allow it to continue. We have to concentrate on the amendments, so we do not want to get into salaries and comparisons in that regard. I am therefore sure the right hon. Lady is coming straight back on to the amendments before us.
Mrs Gillan
I take your admonition, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am trying to use these amendments to make the points that my constituents would expect to be made in the House. They do not understand that we have to try to stick exactly to the final letter, but I do understand that, so I shall attempt to stay in order and not try the patience of the Chair too much.
Lords amendment 11 updates references to environmental regulations, but I am afraid that HS2 continues to be environmentally unsound. The promoters of the project will never be forgiven for the violation of a nationally protected area of outstanding natural beauty, when the technology and capability exist to have tunnelled the whole of that protected area. In fact, the line emerges now from a tunnel near the railway’s highest point.
The derision with which campaigners have been treated is no better reflected than in the words of Lord Snape during the Lords debate. He said that what extra protection was achieved in the Chilterns through tunnelling was
“as a result of demands, including semi-hysterical demands from a then member of the Cabinet, which in the view of many of us who have taken an interest in the project has added unnecessarily to the cost and makes travelling by train less pleasant.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 January 2017; Vol. 777, c. 84.]
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Lord Snape was always a real gentleman when he was in this House, and I can see that he has gone on to maintain those credentials of politeness and to be a champion of equality. His elevation was undoubtedly deserved.
Lords amendments 12 to 25 correct references to local roads, and Lords amendment 51 covers the traffic regulation changes. The residents of Great Missenden parish still have concerns about the siting of the north portal and the effect of construction traffic in the area. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me which of the traffic regulation changes will reassure my constituents, who are disappointed that there has been no relocation of the haul road. Great Missenden Parish Council has noted that
“residents were aggrieved that an undertaking to move the haul road further north is not to be met”.
The mitigation package of assurances for Great Missenden was first discussed in October 2016, but it has still not been formally entered on to the HS2 register of undertakings and assurances. I hope that the Minister will also be able to comment on that.
All the major changes to traffic referred to in Lords amendments 12 to 25 will require good community engagement. When it comes to engaging with local communities, however, HS2 still has a lot to learn. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and I know that we and the constituents we represent are not being treated with due respect.
My constituents have instances of HS2 experts failing to take local concerns seriously, even to the extent of giving incorrect information. Indeed, many of these amendments contain corrections to inaccuracies in the legislation. I understand that this is now a matter of formal complaint, but HS2’s actions have continued to fall short of what is expected from a public body. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam has noted that people often have to resort to freedom of information requests and to petitioning Select Committees because communication with HS2 is so poor. It is really disappointing that HS2 Ltd has not shown more empathy or understanding of the human cost of HS2, even now.
With Royal Assent will start a right royal assault on the people still living on and around the route. The disruption that will be a daily part of their lives during this project’s construction will go on for many years. It would be fitting to say that this has been a life-changing experience—not just for me, but for so many people in the Chilterns and beyond. We are discussing these Lords amendments today, but I have learned that the House of Lords could actually prevent Members of Parliament from speaking up on behalf of their constituents. I was amazed that our locus standi was challenged by the Department for Transport’s subsidiary, and that any Member of Parliament wishing to put forward constructive ideas could be shut up by a House of Lords Committee.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I support my right hon. Friend’s point. It is incomprehensible to our constituents, who have elected us to speak for them, that we should be prevented from articulating the real concerns that have arisen since this legislation left our House. There are very strong feelings among our constituents about that prohibition.
Mrs Gillan
I would have thought that in a democracy, and particularly as elected representatives in a representative democracy, we would have the freedom to speak in these Houses but, no, that is not the case. The Lords amendments were arrived at without the help and support of the elected Members for the affected constituencies. The process certainly taught me a lesson, and it changed my life and my view of democracy.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady share my regret that MPs were shut out from representing their constituents by petitioning the Lords Select Committee? There are constraints at the various stages of a Bill’s consideration in this House, and the Lords Select Committee was an opportunity for our points to be made in detail on behalf of those we represent.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before the right hon. Lady answers that question, I remind the House that the amendments are very, very narrow. The amendments are really quite typographical, and they have nothing to do with what happened over there.
Mrs Gillan
Thank you very much for reminding me of the rules, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am trying to stick very closely to the amendments. Of course, I am referring to the Lords proceedings and to these amendments. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) that it is extraordinary that Ministers who represent constituencies along the route, and who were therefore unable to speak in this House, were prohibited from speaking to the Lords Select Committee because the locus standi was challenged by the very organisation set up by the Department for Transport—in collusion, in other words. MPs were shut up on this issue, as they have been in many instances since the project was first thought of.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now pay tribute to people such as Hilary Wharf and her husband Bruce Weston. They helped to lead the brave HS2 Action Alliance, which still gives advice to beleaguered people and tries to stop or improve this project. My county council, ably led by Councillor Martin Tett, has put an enormous amount of work into the Bill, as has my district council, Chiltern District Council, led by the formidable Councillor Isobel Darby. I particularly mention my parish council, which is struggling to find the resources, alongside the larger councils, to carry out the work necessary to protect and inform its residents.
An additional burden runs from the amendments on traffic regulations, for example, and those costs will fall on our local councils. The amendments covering flood risk, possession of land and changing traffic flows, for example, will lie at the feet of our financially challenged councils, and there is little chance of the full costs being restored to those councils for all the extra work that has been forced on them, unless the Minister tells me different at the Dispatch Box today. In other words, our constituents are paying not once but two or three times over for this project.
Will HS2 be a success? I am still not convinced. Will these amendments make it a success? We learned from last weekend’s newspapers that the Department is so concerned that HS2 may be overtaken by new technology, such as driverless cars, that it is trying to encourage technology companies such as Google and the ever-popular Uber to take a financial stake in the recently announced combined franchise for the west coast main line and HS2 in order to offset the risk that HS2 is, in fact, old technology.
This is my last opportunity to speak on the Bill, and I want to acknowledge, as did the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, a couple of other people who tried to help those affected by HS2. I think particularly of Neil Caulfield, who tried so hard to help people through an obscure and often frightening process. He was a credit to this House and to the Clerks Department. He was scrupulously fair, and nothing was too much trouble for him. Quite frankly, he went above and beyond the call of duty to try to deal with an arcane process that really should be banished from our procedures in this House.
I also want to mention an amazing constituent, Mr Ray Challinor. He was chairman of the Hyde Heath village society, and his commitment to our community and social action was second to none. Sadly, his family laid him to rest this afternoon. I would have liked to attend his funeral to pay my tribute to him, but I pay my tribute on the Floor of the House because he was not a man who supported HS2. He was a man who was fiercely protective of our local community.
Lastly, I should mention all those individuals who have supported the campaign to either stop or radically change HS2. These are people who often could not afford to donate but did so because they could not believe that the state could ride in such a roughshod fashion over the very people who put it in charge.
The Government will get their way—Royal Assent will be given—but this Bill and this project are tainted by the way in which their people have gone about their business. In a democracy, there should not be a process that is so unequal, giving the state such powers over its citizens without the balance that we would expect from a fair society. I hope that at some stage we will be able to consign this hybrid Bill process to the history books. I wish I could say the same about HS2.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I shall be brief, as I am well aware that for some people in the House this has been a long process and it is good that we are getting to the end of it. I caught the end of the previous debate, in which people were saying that the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill was 64 years in the making, so this Bill has, in fact, taken somewhat less time. My party is generally supportive of this bold proposal from the Government, but we would like it to be bolder in the long run as it is important that HS2 extends to Scotland. We also need improvements to the existing line north of Crewe in the meantime so that we can have shorter journey times up north.
I am well aware that I am supposed to be speaking to the Lords amendments. As they have improved the Bill, we support them. We welcome the amendments to clause 48 relating to compulsory purchase order powers. It is important that the Secretary of State sticks to his commitment that any CPO powers will be used sparingly and as a last resort.
As I said, we are supportive of the concept. My background is in civil engineering, so I appreciate the value that infrastructure investment can bring in long-term wider business and economic benefits. On that basis, I would like to see the project go forward and I look forward to the start of the construction. I am well aware that some enabling contracts have been let. While we want to see construction starting, I again remind Ministers that we need improvements north of Crewe, and we need this line to get to Scotland sooner rather than later.
Dame Caroline Spelman
It is not every day that one walks into the Chamber to find parts of one’s constituency, villages or parishes singled out in legislation, but Lords amendment 1 does precisely that. Madam Deputy Speaker, you reminded us that these amendments are narrow, describing them as largely “typographical”, but I wish to impress on hon. Members that this is a topographical amendment. I should not want any Member to leave this Chamber without understanding exactly what we are talking about. The lovely parish of Bickenhill is perhaps where some hon. Members have disembarked from the west coast main line at Birmingham International station. Perhaps they have stood on the platform looking across to the National Exhibition Centre, but they might not have been wholly aware that they were in the green belt. Very close by is Chelmsley Wood, one of the largest council estates in western Europe. I mention those topographical points because, as I am sure that hon. Members can see, names such as Bickenhill and Chelmsley Wood conjure up images of lovely rural locations, yet people there are at no point further than 8 miles from the centre of either Coventry or Birmingham, so we are talking about land that is precious to those who try to keep the balance of green space and urban density.
Bickenhill parish lies in what is known as the Meriden gap, and ever since I have been a Member of this House, I have fought strenuously to protect it, because it is the green lung that holds Coventry and Birmingham apart. Although a matter of 3 or 4 hectares of green space may not theoretically—maybe abstractly—appear to be all that important to everybody else listening to this debate, it is an important issue for the residents of Chelmsley Wood, because the estate has a very high population density of 60 units of accommodation per hectare. The loss of green space in the area is therefore significant.
The local authority, Solihull Council, made representations when the Bill was considered by the Lords Select Committee because every hectare of green space in our green-belt borough is a matter of great importance to all of us who share completely in the local authority’s motto of “Urbs in Rure”. All Latin scholars will realise that that tells us everything we need to know about the balance we need to strike between urban and rural sustainability, side by side. I would therefore say that this is a bit more than just a typographical matter, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is really important for my constituents.
Will the Minister consider whether the Government’s proposals are compatible with their commitment to biodiversity offsetting? As the 2012 “Natural Environment” White Paper set out, the whole principle of biodiversity offsetting was to make it clear that when we destroy green space, we should create new green space to make up for the loss of natural capital. When he responds, will the Minister be clear about whether he has considered that important dimension?
If, by chance, the Government have not thought about the compatibility of their proposals with biodiversity offsetting, I impress on the Minister the enormous opportunity that exists to do something ambitious, at scale, to offset the loss of green space of the type referred to in the amendment. A good proposal to regenerate the Tame and Blythe river valleys has been worked up by a professor at Birmingham City University and presented to the Department. Rather than glossing over a small piece of green space, should we not seize the opportunity of working together to ensure that people who prize green space in urban areas get proper compensation for the green space that is so important to them?
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. Friend is articulating, through the medium of this small amendment, the fears of many people about environmental matters. Does she agree that we face a huge danger because the costs of the project are spiralling out of control, and we all know that it is environmental payback that gets sacrificed if the project cannot afford it? As a major infrastructure project has never been delivered on time and on budget in this country to date, that is the danger.
Dame Caroline Spelman
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. The fact is that we now know so much more about the true value of green space that is lost—we can actually calculate the value of the natural capital. I set up the Natural Capital Committee, which reports to the Treasury, so that we no longer make decisions on the assumption that nature provides things for free. That is not true, because when we take away natural capital, there is a cost to our economy, so it is important that there is proper offsetting.
When the Lords Select Committee discussed the issues relating to Lords amendment 1, it was stated that there is already enough public open space in the locality. Well, I beg to differ. With a housing density of 60 units of accommodation per hectare, there is obviously great pressure on what public open space remains. We should not regard the situation as static, because from the moment the high-speed railway is built, the pressures on the parish of Bickenhill will be enormous. People are always trying to put some new development in the Meriden gap—we already have the M6, the M42, the west coast main line, Birmingham airport and the Chiltern line. We almost had the national football stadium, and we have the National Exhibition Centre. Space will be at an enormous premium, so to disregard the significance of just 4 hectares of green space is not a little matter, which I why I particularly wanted to raise it in this debate.
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. Friend mentions David Higgins. In fact, the outgoing chief executive is Simon Kirby. Sir David Higgins is the chairman. He has just joined the board of Gatwick, and he is also on the board of an Australian bank, so he is doing three jobs at once. I think that my right hon. Friend has made a mistake, which I would love her to correct.
Dame Caroline Spelman
There has been a bit of change at the top of HS2—my right hon. Friend is right. However, I received a letter from David Higgins, and, despite my reminding and re-reminding the offices of HS2 that the case needs to be expedited, it still has not been dealt with.
Lords amendment 51 deals with traffic regulation, which will be very important during the construction phase. I do not pull my punches over this issue with my constituents. We are going to be a building site for at least five years, and that will be extremely disruptive around one of Britain’s busiest transport nodes: the midlands motorway crossroads. I impress upon the Minister that a continuous haul route is very much sought after in my constituency. We have so far been unable to secure undertakings that construction traffic can be prevented from thundering through some of our villages.
Such a village is Balsall Common, which is just outside the parish of Bickenhill. It carries the Kenilworth road, and an alternative for haulage needs to be found because the thought of construction lorries going through the village centre, where children walk to the secondary and primary schools, gives me and their parents real cause for concern. Is there anything the Minister could do to assist with this? David Higgins showed real interest when I raised the possibility of finding a solution under the legislation. It is not in HS2’s interest to have its construction traffic thundering down the centre of villages where children walk to school, but all the alternatives cost money.
Local authorities just do not have the money to create new roads to take five years of construction traffic away from centres of habitation. There is a very real prospect of a good legacy project arising from achieving a continuous haul route so that permanently, and once the railway has been built, people who want to use it do not tear through the centre of the village trying to catch a high-speed train. Perhaps the Minister could make a note of the importance of that for my constituency. Of course, we really wanted a tunnel, which would take some of the pressure off, but rather like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) we recognise that some of our early requests have not fallen on fertile ground.
I also pay tribute to the work of Neil Caulfield. It is important, particularly with the Clerks of the House present in the Chamber, that we share with colleagues that he was a man who went the extra mile for our constituents. I always think that the Clerks go the extra mile for us as Members of Parliament in a way that the public often do not see, such as by helping us with amendments to Bills and finding ways to give expression to the things that our constituents want to see in legislation, but Neil went even further than that. He interacted with a huge case load of people’s needs. These people were desperate to find solutions to the threat of losing their home, or at the very least to get proper compensation. I remember that he took the trouble to come away from the Houses of Parliament to visit the constituency with the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Committee in order to see it all for himself. That was a remarkable commitment by a Clerk of the House. Although the Chair of the Commons Select Committee is not present in the Chamber, I am sure that all members of that Committee, who put in many hours of listening to our constituents’ needs, would like to ensure that we recognise the special role that Neil played.
I give my last word to my constituents, who have gone from being shocked at the proposal when Lord Adonis first mooted it, to believing that it would never happen, to having the dawning realisation that we have to work with how it turns out in practice. I commend Solihull Council for creating a working group that meets once every month—I attend the meetings—to talk through the day-to-day implications as the project unfolds. However, there is no disguising the fact that this is going to be a life-changing experience for the constituency of Meriden and especially for those of my constituents who are most directly affected. They will read this debate and listen to our deliberations, and I would like them to know that I will not give up fighting on their behalf to ameliorate and mitigate the impact of the railway, which will fundamentally benefit our region, but whose impact will fall disproportionately on a few homes.
Keir Starmer
May I begin by joining the tribute to Neil Caulfield? The construction of HS2 will have a devastating impact on thousands of my constituents—one has only to go to a meeting with them to see the concern etched on their faces. Some of them made their way to Parliament to try to go through the bewildering process of making their concerns known, and Neil went out of his way to explain the processes to them and to help them to put their points. I know all the Clerks have done that with us and with others, but what he did was appreciated by my constituents, and I was pleased to be able to write to his family to convey to them what he had done on behalf of my constituents. I am therefore grateful to be able to join the tribute to him.
Amendments 3 and 51 deal with traffic regulations, and amendment 52 deals with lorries and lorry bans. As noted by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), traffic and lorry movements have particular relevance in Holborn and St Pancras and in Camden. As the Lord’s Select Committee on HS2 recognised, Camden residents face disruption on an
“unprecedented scale, both in intensity and in duration”
from the HS2 construction works, which will continue over no fewer than 17 years for my constituents.
That is why the Select Committee made a strong recommendation that all households in Camden, and others similarly affected, that qualify for noise insulation as a result of the works should be eligible for the upgraded level of compensation available to residents in rural areas living within 120 metres of the line. The traffic, the lorry movements and the construction will go on for a long period and will have a profound impact, and that can be demonstrated by the fact that anybody in Holborn and St Pancras having a child this year or next year faces the prospect of that child growing up with construction works taking place for pretty well the whole of its childhood. Equally, anyone retiring this year or next will probably spend their retirement during a period of construction works.
The Select Committee estimated that its recommendation about compensation would benefit 1,300 households in Camden, which, again, gives an indication of the extent of the impact there. Those households would be eligible to receive the full unblighted market value for their property or a cash payment of up to £100,000 if they remained in occupation of their property during the works.
In response to the Select Committee, the Government accepted the part of the recommendation about households that are subjected to severe and prolonged noise and disturbance, but they did not accept the full recommendation. Other components of the Government’s compensation scheme, which they have stated will provide a fair and proportionate remedy for affected households, are still to be specified and remain completely unknown. It was disappointing that, on Report in the Lords, the Minister responding, Lord Ahmed, had nothing to say on the Government’s position on compensation. I remind the Government of the ongoing obligation to meet my constituents’ very genuine concerns about what the future holds for them in relation to mitigation and compensation for such a prolonged period of construction and its impact on them.
The location of the tunnel portal in Camden will make a material difference to the construction process and to the traffic and lorry movements. As the Government will know, there have been rumours for some weeks that an announcement is to be made concerning a move of the tunnel portal in Camden from the top of Parkway to a location south of Mornington Street bridge, several hundred metres nearer to the station. That may seem like a small thing, but to the constituents of Holborn and St Pancras and those living in the area it makes a huge difference. This proposed change has the potential greatly to reduce the damage and disruption to residents of Camden, and is therefore welcome. In the Lords Grand Committee, the Minister promised to provide an update in writing about this important matter, but that has not yet happened. I urge the Government to bear in mind that anything that can be said here, or at any stage in the near future, about the portal will alleviate some of the very real concerns that my constituents have about this, as the Minister knows.
Mark Field
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words. I had not intended to speak, partly because HS2 does not go through my constituency, but I have a lot of sympathy with right hon. and hon. Friends and Members whose constituencies are directly affected. As an MP in central London, I have had Crossrail going through my constituency in the past decade or so. I have made several hundred enemies by not opposing that scheme, but it is clearly a scheme that is very much in the national interest. I am afraid that that does not apply as much to the rail scheme we are discussing.
Where I would disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) is that I do think that the Government have done their level best to make sure that we have legislation that has allowed people to have their say. I know that the outcome is not what she wanted, or indeed what many other right hon. and hon. Members wanted. I hope that the Minister will very much take on board the comments of my constituency neighbour, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). This has got to be the beginning of a process, not the end of a process. The issue of an ongoing dialogue with constituents who are going to be affected by this in the London Borough of Camden and, indeed, throughout the UK must be at the forefront of the Government’s mind.
While we should support large-scale infrastructure projects that are going to work—whatever one thinks of HS2, there are clearly designed to be benefits in that regard—the disruption will clearly be very profound. One of my particular concerns in relation to London is that we also hope to have Crossrail 2. I am already getting letters from constituents within the City of Westminster who are very concerned about the impact that that will have. We must remember that the efforts made by the Government in relation to HS2 will set a precedent for the way in which they deal with those who will be affected by another big infrastructure project such as Crossrail 2.
I fear that there has been a missed opportunity, but not in relation to the amendments. As I have said, I give credit to the Government for their work in getting this hybrid Bill together. We should all support large-scale infrastructure projects that are in the national interest, but whether or not this is the right way forward has been far more open to question. The one thing that the Government can do for those many Britons who will be affected by it directly—whether they are in the midlands, further north or, indeed, in central London—is ensure that they keep their interests at the forefront of their mind as and when the building work commences; otherwise, life will be made incredibly difficult for them. We need to do our level best to ensure that, if the national interest is to be served by an infrastructure project, Ministers keep the mitigation of the disruption at the forefront of their minds and that, although the legislative process is coming to an end, this is not the end of those considerations.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to say a few words. I suspect that the boundary commissioners will have a part to play in ensuring that I work very closely with my constituency neighbour to make sure that all people in central London are properly represented in the many years ahead.
Andrew Jones
There are quite a lot of questions to answer. This has been a very helpful final debate on the Bill and I will try to answer colleagues’ questions, some of which had themes in common.
I will address the questions in no particular order. Several Members have said that it is important that we maintain and commit to an ongoing dialogue. I am happy to make that commitment. I do not view this as the end of a process; I view it as the end of one phase of a process and the start of another. We go from a project in development to a project in delivery, and that will require more dialogue, not less, particularly as we work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has just said, to keep mitigation at the forefront of our minds during the construction process. I am happy to make that commitment —there is no doubt about that.
Many people have also been concerned about the hybrid Bill process. The locus standi rules are set by the House, not by the Government, but the House is considering the hybrid Bill procedure. That review is under way and I am sure that it will consider colleagues’ views on whether they were able to participate and petition in the other place. I know that those petitioning arrangements caused much frustration and, indeed, confusion among our constituents. The process is not straightforward.
Mrs Gillan
I know that it is too late now, but it would have been nice if the Government had actually instructed HS2 Ltd not to get its very expensive barrister to object to our locus standi. The Government had a simple solution in their hands: they could have let all the MPs represent their constituents, but they chose not to do so. I appreciate that the Minister is relatively new to the issue, but it was really and truly a case of being let down by your own side and of your own side letting down democracy.
Andrew Jones
I am not sure that I can comment on that point. It refers to something that happened way before I took any responsibility for this area, but my right hon. Friend has made it firmly.
The Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), asked about traffic regulation orders and I can confirm that reasonable costs will be met by HS2 Ltd. I will ask HS2 Ltd to confirm that to local authorities, in case there is any doubt.
On Great Missenden, the relocation of the haul road was considered by both Houses. Moving the haul road north would have created new, significant environmental effects, and a new version of the register of undertakings and assurances, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has asked about, will be published at Royal Assent.
Several Members talked about the skills footprint and the careers legacy of HS2, with people perhaps spending their entire working career on the project, and I completely agree with them. I had a great visit to the HS2 college in Doncaster this morning. The college is progressing very well. It is due to open in September, and it is already attracting significant interest. In fact, the number of applicants seeking to go there in September is way ahead of projections. This is part of how HS2, among our other railways, will redefine the future. I saw the progress that the college has made—it has actually got as far as having track laid in the training workshop area—and that brings home to us that the project really is a very big and exciting opportunity.
I can confirm, in answer to several requests, that the Government fully accept Lords amendment 4, which colleagues have called the land-grab or non-land-grab amendment. I confirm that we accept all the Lords amendments, including Lords amendments 1 and 2 in relation to the work in the Meriden constituency.
Many colleagues have mentioned the compensation arrangements and how long it is taking to come to financial arrangements with HS2 Ltd. This is a mixture of the financial costs and the fact that we must recognise that there is also a human or emotional cost. We do not just invest cash in creating our homes; our homes are much more than that, and we must respect the human cost. If some people have their homes repossessed or changed, we have to be sensitive and to treat people with respect and generosity. Quite frankly, if colleagues are not seeing that happen, I am sure they will be keen to raise that with me—they have already done so—and I am very happy to continue to raise their points with HS2 Ltd. I want HS2 Ltd to be a good neighbour, and I know that view is wholly shared by HS2 Ltd itself.
I welcome the SNP’s support for this project. I recognise that we are going no further north than Leeds and Manchester—I should perhaps add that we are going no further north than Leeds and Manchester yet, and I see much merit in taking it further—but there will be immediate benefits for the people of Scotland from the development that will, I hope, receive Royal Assent this week. Its capacity will allow more services and the time involved in journeys will be reduced.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Minister mentions the benefit of HS2 to Scotland. Will he confirm whether there is a Barnett consequential to the spending on HS2?
Andrew Jones
That is way above my pay grade. I simply do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, so I will have to do some checking to find out.
There were a number of other questions. I have clearly heard the points about compensation and mitigation raised by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I can confirm that we are working on the tunnel portal location, but we are not yet in a position to make any announcements. I recognise that such a change will make a significant difference to many people, but we are working on it, as he will be aware.
Mrs Gillan
I am sorry to go back to the Barnett consequential, but as it has been raised may I point out that there was a Barnett consequential to the travel element of the Olympic park for Wales and Scotland? As this is a transport project, I presume that there will be Barnett consequentials for the devolved Administrations.
Andrew Jones
I am not sure that I can add anything to what I said a moment ago. Barnett consequentials are way above my pay grade, and I will have to do some checking before commenting one way or the other. It sounds as though making a presumption would be a very foolish error, and that is clearly not within the remit of these amendments.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Minister for his comment that this is the beginning of an ongoing dialogue about compensation and mitigation. The tunnel portal is no small matter. Is he able to say when an announcement might be made about the portal, because there is real concern in my constituency about that and other issues?
Andrew Jones
I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. and learned Gentleman a date yet, but I can tell him that we recognise the importance of this. We are working on it and will seek to resolve all outstanding questions as soon as we can. I recognise that such uncertainty is not helpful for him or anyone he represents.
I have answered a significant number of questions. If there were any further questions, I will write to colleagues.
Taking the Bill through Parliament has been a significant piece of work. We have had 3,408 petitions lodged against the Bill and its additional provisions. In response, the Government have submitted five additional provisions to the Bill, which have made 400 changes to the project. The sheer amount of work that has gone into addressing all the concerns is phenomenal.
The environmental assessment work that has supported the parliamentary and public scrutiny of the Bill has been unprecedented. An almost 50,000-page environmental statement—perhaps that in itself is not environmentally friendly—accompanied the original deposit of the Bill in November 2013. Several further detailed environmental statements have been published alongside the additional provisions that have been made during the Bill’s passage. That work has developed measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, offset all the major adverse effects of the project.
The Government have given well over 4,500 individual assurances to reassure petitioners about concerns they have raised. Those are binding commitments on the project that will be integrated into contracts for the delivery of the scheme.
Parliament has spent over three years scrutinising the Bill and longer still debating the project. That debate will continue as we move into phases 2a and 2b, and as further Bills are deposited in Parliament in due course. The case for phase 1 has been proven in fine detail. Parliament has voted in overwhelming numbers to approve the project in both Houses at every opportunity it has been given to do so.
I believe that HS2 will deliver much-needed capacity in our rail network. It will deliver economic growth right across our country, north and south. It will deliver jobs and a lasting legacy of economic change. It will be the cornerstone of a world-beating economy—a vibrant economy that works for all of us, up and down our country.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 54 agreed to.
Business without Debate
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House (22 February)
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Motor Neurone Disease/Gordon Aikman
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the good offices of Mr Speaker and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting time for this Adjournment debate. I want to talk about the dreadful disease that is motor neurone disease and to pay tribute to the life of Gordon Aikman.
I wish we were not having this debate, because that would mean Gordon Aikman was still with us. He sadly passed away on 2 February, aged just 31.
I want to do three things this evening: first, pay tribute in this House to Gordon Aikman and what he achieved both in his life and in his death; secondly, give more exposure to what MND is and how the disease affects those stricken by it; and, thirdly, discuss what we can all do and what the Government can do to help find a cure.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this much needed debate to the Floor of the House. Will he join me in paying tribute to local MND associations across the United Kingdom for the invaluable support they provide? I know of the excellent work of my local Leicestershire and Rutland association, having heard at first hand from a constituent and friend of mine, Ruth Morrison, about her tragic personal experience. The support that is available is of immense value and I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in paying tribute to the work of those associations.
Ian Murray
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was able to intervene to emphasise the good work that MND associations, including MND Scotland, do across the country. I pay tribute to him for highlighting that good work in the House and I ask him to pass on our best wishes to his constituents who are stricken by this dreadful disease.
Gordon Aikman was only 29 when he was diagnosed with MND. He was given 14 months to live but, as was usual with Gordon, his dedication and determination made sure he doubled that to 28. Gordon died leaving behind a loving husband, Joe, who is with us this evening, a doting mother, Nancy, and a devoted sister, Lorraine. He has become a twinkling star in the sky for his young niece Ailidh and young nephew Murray, who would describe Gordon as “Uncle Gordon with wheels” when he was in his wheelchair. He leaves behind friends whose lives will forever have a Gordon Aikman-shaped hole in them. All our thoughts at this time go out to everyone who knew him.
Gordon leaves a legacy that few of us will ever be able to match. Gordon was an inspiration: dedicated, intelligent, meticulous and simply a lovely person to be around. He touched the lives of everyone who had the pleasure of getting to know him and spend time with him. He was a graduate of the University of Edinburgh and a former gymnast who represented Scotland. He was working as director of research for Better Together, the campaign to keep Scotland in the UK, during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 when he fell ill. He had gone to the doctors with recurring numbness in his hands. He was beginning to find it difficult to tie his shoelaces and button his shirts. He anticipated, as we all do, that a pack of pills and a bit of rest would do the trick. How wrong could he be?
I cannot do justice to what happened to Gordon, so I will let Gordon tell his own story in his own words, quoting from the moving Scotland on Sunday article he wrote in the week he was given the sad news. He wrote:
“I am lying on a cold hospital bed, stripped down with electrodes stuck all over my skin. A doctor quietly takes notes as pulses race through my body. After almost an hour I get back into my suit, ready for a packed day of calls and meetings.
The doctor steps out to speak to my consultant. I flick through the morning’s headlines on Twitter and quickly check my email as I wait. In my job as director of research at Better Together, I have got to be up to date. The doctor is gone some time. My appointment has already overrun. I’m irritated. He returns and says: ‘Your neurologist would like to see you at 1.15 tomorrow.’
‘Tomorrow won’t work. I have meetings. Meetings I can’t miss.’ He tilts his head to one side, holding my stare for what seems like an eternity, before stressing: ‘Your neurologist will see you tomorrow. 1.15.’ The penny starts to drop. Suddenly that conference on the economics of independence seems far less important. Fast-forward 24 hours and I am back at Edinburgh’s Western General. This time I sit opposite my consultant neurologist; a young, caring face looks back. He speaks softly, but this time the atmosphere is different. He talks slowly. He pauses. I know it isn’t good news, but nothing could prepare me for what he is about to say.
Tears form in his eyes as he explains that all the diagnostic tests point to something called Motor Neurone Disease or MND. I’m confused. ‘That doesn’t sound good,’ I respond awkwardly, thinking to myself: ‘I don’t have time for this.’ He asks what I know about MND. ‘Very little,’ is my honest answer.
‘It is a rare, progressive and debilitating disease,’ he explains, ‘that attacks the brain and spinal cord.’ I don’t believe what he is telling me. I shake my head in disbelief. ‘In time,’ he says, ‘it will lead to weakness, and muscle wasting,’ affecting how I walk, talk, eat, drink and breathe. How could this be? My symptoms seemed so innocuous. ‘Why me? Why now?’ I ask. He bites his lip, before replying candidly: ‘We just don’t know unfortunately.’
When I press further, he concedes: ‘There is no cure.’ I cut to the chase: ‘What is the prognosis? How long will I live?’ Hesitant, he prefixes his answer with ‘everybody is different’ and ‘it is difficult to predict’. He then wells up before admitting that we are talking ‘just a few years’. My head is a mess. I stand up, walk across to the window, run my hands through my hair and stare out into the middle distance. My mind goes blank. I don’t know what do. I’m 29 years old and I have just been given a death sentence.”
Gordon went on to write:
“When you are told you are dying you face a choice: you can wallow in self-pity, or you can make the most of what you’ve got”.
And, my goodness, Gordon certainly made the most of what he had. He married his husband Joe and travelled extensively. As we heard at the funeral and the celebration of Gordon’s life on Saturday, he travelled to New York, Boston, Amsterdam, Dublin, Stockholm, Madrid, Tenerife, Prague, Tuscany, Newquay, Paris, Cork, Munich, Orkney, Fort William and California, as well as Israel, South Africa, Switzerland, and had a trip on the Queen Mary II and a break in Iceland to see the northern lights. If I have missed any, I apologise. He also spent as much time as he could with his family and his friends.
With all of that, Gordon was determined to ensure that those who suffered from MND got the best care, the best deal and the hope of a cure in the future. Understanding lies at the root of all human endeavour. In order to defeat something, we must find out what it is first, so here is what we do know and, most importantly for tonight’s debate, what we do not know about MND.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I agree with him that Gordon Aikman was indeed an inspiration. Does he agree that his campaigning work, particularly with the First Minister of Scotland, ensuring changes to the law around voice therapy, for example, and doubling the number of specialist nurses, was important to his campaign?
Ian Murray
I do agree, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was able to make that point, but as the First Minister said on Saturday at the celebration of Gordon’s life, all the credit for those changes to care in Scotland goes to Gordon and his campaign. There is a need for us all now to take that campaign and make sure that the rest is delivered.
Researchers have yet to discover how or why people develop the disease. In Gordon’s case and in around 95% of diagnoses, there is no family history of the condition. MND is a fatal, rapidly progressing neurological disease that affects the brain and spinal cord. It can leave people locked in a failing body, unable to move, talk or, eventually, breathe. It kills a third of people within a year and more than 50% within two years of diagnosis. It affects up to 5,000 adults at any one time in the UK and kills six people every day in the UK.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this evening’s debate. I never met Gordon, but I have been inspired by what I have found out about him in the last two weeks. We all come across constituents who will face life-changing situations, and Gordon will become the reference point. I will refer people to what he did, how he coped with adversity and how he helped to improve and change the lives of others. If I may also say in this intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would urge the Minister to look at Gordon’s Fightback website and take on board some of the points that he raised, because we have much to learn from what he told us.
Ian Murray
I am delighted at the hon. Gentleman’s intervention; he is indeed right. Many people have drawn inspiration from Gordon’s Fightback, the way in which he dealt with the disease, the dignity with which he did so, and the fact that he spent his remaining time fighting to raise over half a million pounds for the things that he believed in, when most of us would have been lesser human beings and wallowed in self-pity or done something else. It is testament to that that we have the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister in the Chamber tonight listening to the debate. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to respond with some positive developments to keep Gordon’s memory alive.
Some people may experience changes in thinking and behaviour, with a proportion experiencing frontotemporal dementia, which is a rare form of dementia. This is the key thing about MND, though: it has no cure. It is that last point that drove Gordon on. He was a tireless and courageous campaigner on behalf of people living with MND, as well as their families and loved ones. He created his Gordon’s Fightback campaign, which we have heard about tonight, and his tenacious work with MND Scotland was inspirational to many and helped to raise awareness of MND across the country.
Gordon had raised over £500,000 by the time he died —more now, incidentally—but he had also put MND on the map. Do you remember the ice bucket challenge, Madam Deputy Speaker? I do not know whether you participated yourself—if not, we could maybe go into Palace Yard after this debate and relive what happened in 2014—but that was the summer campaign, where we all soaked each other with iced water in the name of MND awareness and fundraising. It was with campaigns such as these that Gordon doubled the number of—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. For the avoidance of doubt, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this. Never was there a better campaign to draw attention to something that needed attention drawn to it. Although I managed to avoid it myself, I did engineer other people’s participation. The hon. Gentleman has done very well to mention this issue today. I had not realised that the two things were connected. What an absolutely brilliant campaign.
Ian Murray
I am delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are now able to make the connection between that campaign and Gordon’s Fightback, and are aware of the significant amount of money that was raised in 2014. I do not think there was ever an end-point to the ice bucket challenge. If there was an end-point, perhaps someone from MND Scotland could let me know. I think the way it went was that if someone was soaked, they nominated others, as indeed you have done, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the grace of the House, therefore, I would like to nominate Madam Deputy Speaker to do the bucket challenge. I think the terminology is, Madam Deputy Speaker, “You have seven days”.
That, then, was the summer campaign when we all soaked each other with iced water in the name of MND awareness and fundraising. It was through campaigns such as these that Gordon doubled the number of specialist nurses in Scotland, paid for by the NHS rather than by charitable donations. Among Gordon’s more recent achievements was ensuring that MND patients with communication difficulties had access to their own voice synthesizers on the NHS. It was Gordon’s biggest fear—not just losing his own voice, but the synthesisation of his own voice being someone else’s. He fought for that and got it changed.
Despite those and other improvements, however, there is still much more to be done in the battle to defeat MND. First and foremost, if we are to find a cure for MND, we must vastly improve our understanding of its root causes, and it is here that I hope the Minister can help us this evening. MND is a question to which we have yet to find a suitable answer. Researchers still do not know what causes the disease. A key recommendation of Gordon’s Fightback campaign is to double public investment in MND research from its current level of £5 million a year to £10 million a year. Unlike some of Gordon’s wonderful achievements that we have highlighted this evening, there has to date been no action taken to meet that goal. At present, MND research relies heavily on the support and contributions of the voluntary sector.
The MND Association, sister associations in England and Wales and MND Scotland have a research portfolio comprising over 80 projects, totalling over £14 million of charitable funds, including £5 million raised by the very ice bucket challenge in which you will participate, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the next seven days. I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this might be my last ever speech in this Chamber, but I shall carry on regardless.
The association’s support for MND research focuses on five key themes: identifying the causes of MND; developing models of MND; identifying markers of disease progression; developing treatments; and improving healthcare and disease management for those affected.
We have a real opportunity to embrace the leading research base in this country to do just that. For centuries, major leaps forward in medicine and science have been made in the UK. With the right investment and support, we could find a cure for MND here now. Scotland is uniquely placed to become a hub for innovative research into the disease for a number of reasons. Edinburgh University’s Euan MacDonald centre is already undertaking cutting-edge research into MND. Patients already have a unique patient identifier, which means those with MND can be more easily identified and monitored throughout their interaction with the health service. The increased number of specialist MND nurses will allow better, more detailed tracking of how the disease progresses in patients.
Progress has been made. The Euan MacDonald centre thinks it might have found a potential reason why motor neurons are vulnerable to stress and disease, which could be one of the very first steps to avoiding or halting the progression of MND. This collaborative project, involving the universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge and institutions as far afield as Japan, is also helping understand how motor neurons develop and regenerate. The cure could be in this generation’s hands. Funding in the United States—where the ALS Association, the US equivalent of the MND Association, has identified a key genome with funds raised by the US bucket challenge—could be the first step towards a cure.
As well as doubling public research funding, the Minister could help by making “fast-track” benefits fit for purpose. People with MND do not live long—we know that—but it can take several months to process applications for the benefits that they need, such as personal independence payments. Currently, the “fast-track” system applies only to people who are judged to have less than six months to live. That needs to be extended to 12 months, or, indeed, the system should apply at the time of diagnosis.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) hoped to attend the debate, but he is stuck on a train somewhere between Wigan and London, and the main business ended early today. Let me just mention that his mother and brother-in-law both died of MND. I believe that he met the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), just before Christmas, with the aim of ensuring that when a DWP assessment was completed for someone suffering from MND, that person would not be reassessed. However, I understand from the hon. Gentleman that the Department for Work and Pensions is still issuing letters about reassessment. I should be grateful if the Minister wrote to the hon. Gentleman, and me, to update us on what progress has been made in relation to not issuing such letters when people have been diagnosed with MND and a proper assessment has already been carried out.
Let me also pay a brief tribute to another friend of mine who died from MND. Robert Wilson died in August last year. He was a former partner at Deloitte in Edinburgh, and became the first chair of the Scottish Premier League in 1998 after helping to set it up. I got to know Robert when he advised the Foundation of Hearts to be in a position to take Heart of Midlothian football club out of impending liquidation. His straight-talking style was direct. He said things as he saw them. He was always challenging, and always hugely helpful. We were lucky to have him, and so was the club. It is thanks in large part to Robert that it survives and thrives today; it would have disappeared had it not been for people like him. Robert and I subsequently served together on the board of Hearts football club. Everyone was really fond of him. We were robbed of his intense intellect, his passion for the club, and his companionship when MND took his life. He was respected and admired by all, and will be very sadly missed, especially by his wonderfully supportive family.
Gordon had a nickname when he worked at the Scottish Parliament. His nickname was “14%”. Many people may ask why that was. It was because when he worked as a researcher for the Scottish Labour party, he was responsible for 14% of all the freedom of information requests submitted to the Scottish Government. That fact was even mentioned by the former First Minister, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), at First Minister’s Questions. The right hon. Gentleman was rather irritated by it. If Gordon is to leave any legacy, irritating the former First Minister is very high up in my book. Tonight, however, I want us to change Gordon’s nickname. I want us to change it from “14%” to “100%”, and we can do that by doubling the annual research budget for MND from £5 million to £10 million a year.
Gordon, in his death, transformed the lives of so many. The world is a better place for his having been in it. The understanding of MND is enhanced by his dedication to educating. The care of those suffering is enshrined in his having fought for it. The rights of those affected are secured because he demanded that. The cure for MND is closer after his fundraising for it. Gordon did so much in such a short space of time, and now it is our time to find a way to honour that legacy. I say this to the Minister: let us pledge tonight to be a little more like Gordon, and double the MND research budget.
In life, Gordon gave a voice to MND patients; in death, Gordon’s own voice speaks on. It speaks on in the words that he wrote, in the things that he achieved, and in the lives that he touched. I opened my speech in Gordon’s words, and I will finish with them, as echoed by the Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale at his funeral on Saturday. Gordon said:
“What I have lost in strength of body, I make up for in strength of mind. I am more determined and driven than ever... I want to make every day count.
My love is deeper. I find joy in simpler things and in different places. I am more chilled out, at peace with the fact that there is so much in life that is out of our control.
Let’s celebrate the rich, diverse and complicated world we live in. Let’s savour each day. Let’s measure life not by length but by depth.”
Gordon Lewis Aikman, born on 2 April 1985, died on 2 February 2017, aged 31. May he rest in peace, but may his legacy live on.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I thank fellow Members for their contributions and passion on this topic, and in particular the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for calling this debate.
We have heard this evening how many in this House were saddened to hear of Gordon Aikman’s passing this month, and we have heard how his courageous and incredible efforts to raise awareness of motor neurone disease and help others were truly inspirational and have made a huge difference to the lives of MND sufferers. His loss will of course be most keenly felt by those who knew him best, such as people who are in this Chamber today, and all Members’ thoughts are with his family and friends at this difficult time.
Sadly, Gordon’s condition was not unique. It is estimated that there are up to 5,000 people with MND in the UK today, while each year approximately 1,100 people are diagnosed around the world. The Government are aware of the immense difficulties and challenges faced by MND sufferers and we are taking significant action, both via research funding and alterations to clinical guidelines, to improve MND patient care and treatments.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South said, funding MND research is key if we are to find a cure and improve treatments for MND patients. We are investing over £1 billion a year in the National Institute for Health Research, whose spend on research relating to neurological conditions was £53 million in 2015-16. In addition, the Government fund the seven research councils, which invest around £3 billion each year in research covering the full spectrum of academic disciplines, from the medical and biological sciences to astronomy, physics, chemistry and engineering, social sciences, economics, environmental sciences and the arts and humanities. The majority of research council investment in MND research is made by the Medical Research Council, with some relevant research also funded through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.
The MRC supports research relating to a broad portfolio of neurodegenerative diseases and currently spends, as the hon. Gentleman said, about £5 million per year on research relating to MND. The MRC funds research at many leading institutes in the country, including the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, the UCL Institute of Neurology, the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery and the University of Oxford.
MRC-funded research includes projects to increase understanding of the basic molecular mechanisms underlying MND, improve the assessment of disease progression and identify biomarkers of disease activity in patients with different types of MND. It also works in partnership with charities and other funders, nationally and internationally, to support research into MND.
In addition to the MRC, the BBSRC funds world-class bioscience and biotechnology that underpins health research. In the context of MND, this may include the basic bioscience of motor neurones. Over the last five financial years, the BBSRC has spent about £4.7 million on research projects which focus on basic underpinning research that will increase understanding of the normal cellular processes that support motor neurone function.
In addition to research funding, we understand that positively influencing the healthcare and clinical system is key if we are to improve the lives of MND sufferers. The Government understand that one of the major hurdles facing MND patients is the challenge of getting an accurate and fast diagnosis. No two people with MND will be affected in exactly the same way, and there is no one test to diagnose the condition.
The disease can be difficult to identify in its early stages, as the symptoms are often mild and shared with more common conditions. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published its MND assessment and management guidance document in February 2016. The guidance sets out MND’s signs and symptoms, provides information about local referral arrangements and recommends that robust protocols and pathways are in place to inform healthcare professionals about the disease and how it might present itself. I know, and am glad, that the guidance was described by the leading charity, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, as “hugely significant”.
We know that MND patients value and need specialist services, and this is something that Gordon Aikman successfully campaigned for in Scotland. NHS England has set out that services for MND patients should be specialised. Care for MND patients involves a multidisciplinary team approach from MND specialists who should work to ensure that patients are fully supported and co-ordinate with other care providers or teams as necessary.
NHS England commissions the care that patients may receive from 25 specialised neurological treatment centres across England. It has published a service specification setting out what providers must have in place to deliver specialised neurological care. This supports equity of access to a high quality service for patients, wherever they live. Patients are also able to access the drug Riluzole on the NHS. This is the only licensed treatment available that can slow the progression of the disease. I know that specialist MND nurses are highly valued by MND patients and their families. Recruitment of nurse specialists is a local matter, but it is important to highlight that such nurses are a key part of the national specialised services that NHS England delivers for patients with neurological problems such as MND.
Another of Gordon Aikman’s seven key campaign points was to guarantee that no MND patient should die without a voice. Augmentative and alternative communication—AAC—aids are used to restore communication for people who cannot communicate using speech, and to address severe impacts on independence and quality of life. NHS England has established a national AAC service, commissioned from 13 centres. It is the first national AAC service of its kind in the country. Priority for assessment is given to patients who have a life-limiting condition such as MND. I am glad that this was welcomed by stakeholders as a major step forward in providing clarity and consistency of provision.
I hope that this debate has reassured fellow Members that the Government are aware of the immense difficulties and challenges faced by motor neurone disease sufferers and that we are taking action in multiple areas to improve the care and prognosis of MND patients. Gordon Aikman’s legacy will live on for a long time due to his courage and his determination to raise the profile of MND and to make a real difference to the lives of MND sufferers.
Question put and agreed to.
draft Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Permission in Principle etc) (Miscellaneous amendments) (england) regulations 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Housing and Planning Act 2016 (Permission in Principle etc) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (England) Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, for what I think is the first time. The regulations are necessary to ensure the effective operation of permission in principle when it is introduced later this year.
Permission in principle is a new route to planning permission that will give developers up-front certainty that sites are suitable for housing-led development in principle before they need to work up detailed and costly development proposals. It will therefore be of particular benefit to small developers. I think there is a recognition across the House that we are far too dependent on a small number of large developers and need to look at things we can do to encourage existing small and medium-sized developers to grow and to encourage new people into the market. Permission in principle will make the planning process less risky and more efficient. In doing so, it will help to tackle the under-supply of housing by increasing the amount of land—particularly brownfield land—with permission to build.
We secured the primary powers for permission in principle through the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and consulted on the detailed operation of the policy. Having taken account of the responses received, we are developing secondary legislation that we intend to lay before the House shortly. The regulations before us today are technical and make a small number of minor consequential and miscellaneous amendments to primary legislation. In effect, they deal with matters that have been identified since the 2016 Act received Royal Assent. I will do my best to explain the particular pieces of legislation being amended.
Regulation 2 amends paragraph 9 of schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, which, as I am sure everyone in this room knows, prevents a local planning authority from excluding information at a planning committee meeting about an application for planning permission in relation to development on its own land. The amendment will require the local planning authority to comply with that requirement where an application for permission in principle is made in relation to local authority land, thereby ensuring similar treatment to normal planning permission.
Regulation 3 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 69 of the 1990 Act deals with entries on planning registers—something we talked about in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill Committee—which are public records of planning applications and permissions in the local area. Regulation 3 will ensure that records of permission in principle applications and consents are made available on registers in the same way as normal applications for planning permission.
Section 75 of the 1990 Act ensures that a grant of planning permission enures for the benefit of the land—when I first read this speech, I thought that word was “ensures”, with a typo—which means that a grant of planning permission runs with the land and is not personal to the applicant. Regulation 3 applies that long-standing principle to grants of planning permission in principle, so that they also run with the land rather than with the applicant.
Section 96A of the 1990 Act enables a non-material change to be made to a grant of planning permission, such as the correction of a spelling mistake. The regulation will enable the applicant to follow an expedited process to make a non-material change to a grant of permission in principle in the same way that applies for normal planning permission. Without the amendment, the applicant would have to reapply for permission in principle to make such a change.
The final change being made through regulation 3 is to amend section 100 of the 1990 Act, which deals with revocation powers. The amendment will ensure that local planning authorities can revoke or modify a grant of planning permission in principle in the exceptional circumstances where that course of action is necessary. That is consistent with the current arrangements for grants of full or outline planning permission.
Regulation 4 will amend the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 to ensure that in dealing with an application for hazardous substances consent, the hazardous substances authority shall have regard to any permission in principle granted in relation to land in the vicinity. The change will ensure consistency with the arrangements for having due regard to grants of full planning permission in relation to a hazardous substances consent.
Finally, regulation 5 will amend the Commons Act 2006 to ensure that when a local planning authority publicises its intention to grant permission in principle to a suitable site on a brownfield register, the right to apply to register that site as a town and village green is switched off. The right to apply is reinstated when a period of 10 weeks passes from when the local planning authority publicises its intention to grant permission in principle without the land being granted permission in principle. The right to apply is also reinstated when the granted permission in principle expires.
I hope that is clear. Essentially, regulations 2 to 5 change pieces of primary legislation in ways that treat permission in principle in exactly the same way as ordinary planning permission is treated. These are things that were not spotted when the 2016 Act was before the House, and the regulations are trying to put that right. They are technical and, I hope, uncontroversial in nature, but I will soon find out. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I thank the Minister for outlining what is in the statutory instrument. I suspect that this is one of many corrections that might have to be made to the 2016 Act, but we will see.
As the Minister rightly pointed out, the SI deals with the new consent route, called permission in principle, which is designed to separate the planning decision making on in-principle issues, such as the location or number of homes to be built, from matters of technical detail. That subject was much talked about, though not by this Minister, during the passage of the 2016 Act, and I have to say it is a route to permission that those of us on the Opposition Benches had some difficulty with. We know that the Government aim to give up-front certainty to developers that fundamental principles are acceptable before they get into the detail, but we think that the cost of such a policy is too great because it will bypass local people almost completely with regard to decision making.
The Opposition would have much preferred the Government to have looked at how to streamline and simplify the planning system, rather than, in effect, creating a way around the system, completely circumventing policies in place and, in particular, communities that will be affected by development. However, we are where we are, so I hope that the Minister will at least keep permission in principle under review, to look at whether there are any adverse consequences for local communities.
To turn to the specifics—I accept that the SI is largely technical in nature, amending primary legislation—I have a number of questions for the Minister. Regulation 2 relates to exempt information and provides that a local planning authority’s application for permission in principle should not be exempt information. That is vital, so that is one part of the SI that we support. It will enable more transparency in the planning system, but there are much greater issues that require greater transparency, such as viability and how that is arrived at. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s comments on whether his newly found quest for transparency in the system is going to go further.
I have a specific question on regulation 3 that relates to non-material amendments. It would be helpful to have more detail on how that will work. In particular, I want clarification from the Minister. One problem that we had during the passage of the 2016 Act was about permission in principle being granted and it not being possible to withdraw it in any circumstances. For example, if permission in principle were granted for a site that was then found to be archaeologically very important, the local authority would not be able to withdraw it. I am not sure, from what the Minister said, whether he and his Department are starting to think of circumstances in which it might be necessary to withdraw permission in principle.
Regulation 4 is about hazardous substances consent in relation to permission in principle. Again, will the Minister give us some assurances? The regulation calls for the hazardous substances authority to have regard to any permission in principle that has been granted for land in the vicinity, but what exactly does that mean in practice? How do the Government define “in the vicinity”? Will there be a formal notification process for local people who might be looking to buy housing that comes forward on that land? Will they know that there are hazardous substances there or near it? Will they have to carry out testing in relation to environmental impacts— impacts that the hazardous substance might have on the water supply or on plant or animal life? Moreover, without knowing exactly what will be on the site, how will the hazardous substances authority be able accurately to determine the potential consequences? The implications could be quite wide ranging, and we need to hear more from the Government on that.
I consider regulation 5 the most contentious element of the SI. In fact, it is so contentious that I am surprised the Minister has not had a rethink. The regulation is about triggering and terminating events in relation to the right to apply for registration of a village green. As the Minister will know, section 87 of the Localism Act 2011, in addition to the 2006 Act, which he covered, deals with assets of community value and the process of being able to register a village green. During the passage of the 2011 Act and subsequently, the then Minister thought that that was such an important benefit for communities that he insisted that it be put into the national planning policy framework, and I think he was right to do that. However, the whole point of giving a community the ability to designate a village green is to ensure that there is continued community benefit from a piece of land that has important recreational value locally, and the SI, and therefore Act itself, seeks to ensure that that right is lost to lots of people.
We all know that, in practice, communities are often persuaded or encouraged to register a piece of land as a village green only when it is under threat. That is the only time when they think they need to do something to protect it; otherwise, they think it will just be there, for community use, year after year. However, the SI will ensure that as soon as a piece of land is put into a development plan or a developer comes forward with a scheme, the right to be able to protect that piece of land disappears. We did not like that during the passage of the 2016 Act and we do not like it now. It is profoundly anti-localist.
The Government should think again about whether they want to remove that right completely. We thought during the passage of the Act, and I think now, that the Minister should be putting in place a streamlined procedure to judge whether an asset of community value or a piece of open space may be registered as a village green, and ensuring that that determination is made very quickly so that it does not hold up development, rather than taking away from local communities this important right to be able to protect land that is important to them.
Lastly, I accept what the Minister said about this being an SI that will amend primary legislation, as it does not include a lot of detail about how permission in principle will work in practice. During the passage of the 2016 Act, he promised that a lot more detail on how that difficult procedure will operate in practice would be brought forward in secondary legislation. Clearly, this is not the secondary legislation that will give us that additional detail, so it might be helpful to hear from him about when he expects that we will get much more information on how permission in principle will operate in practice.
Gavin Barwell
I will do my best to respond to the points raised by the hon. Lady and, I hope, to reassure her so that she feels able to support the regulations.
On the hon. Lady’s point about corrections to the previous Act, I draw a distinction: there are some areas where this new Government have taken a different view—welcomed, in a number of cases, by the official Opposition—from the previous Government and are changing policy. The regulations do not, however, change the principle of the policy at all—they are merely correcting some things that neither the Government nor, to be fair, the official Opposition at the time spotted when the legislation was going through the House. It is usual under Governments of all colours, particularly in complex areas of legislation, to include a clause that allows us to correct such things through the affirmative procedure, rather than our having to take up the House’s time with primary legislation.
Although it is not on the detail of the regulations, I reassure the hon. Lady that it is not at all the case that, in some way, permission in principle is an attempt to get around the planning system. First, the Government have always been quite clear that permission in principle will be used in limited areas. The first is in relation to sites that local authorities choose to list on the new statutory brownfield registers. Again, I would have thought it is a point of agreement across the House that we want to see more development on brownfield land in this country.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I thank the Minister for the points he is making, but I say to him that if the Government had kept Labour’s “brownfield first” policy, we would not have to have a brownfield register or have permission in principle being given to get around the planning system.
Gavin Barwell
With respect to the hon. Lady, I am not sure that we managed to avoid building on significant areas of greenfield in this country during the 13 years of the last Labour Government. There is an agreement that we want a “brownfield first” policy, but brownfield registers have been fairly widely welcomed across the sector because they will give developers clear information about brownfield sites that are suitable for development in an area. I hope the hon. Lady is not signalling that the official Opposition do not support brownfield registers, because many Labour councils have been involved in piloting them, and the Government very much welcome those councils’ support for our agenda.
The brownfield registers are important. That is one area in which permission in principle will work. The second is sites that are specifically allocated through a local plan or a neighbourhood plan. That is not in any way getting around the planning system; that is local authorities and communities specifically choosing to allocate sites as suitable for permission in principle. The third area is by application by a developer on small sites only. It is clear that that is about trying to ensure that small and medium-sized developers find it easier to get planning permission for sites that they are able to develop. The hon. Lady will know, from the evidence that the Federation of Master Builders gave to the Neighbourhood Planning Bill’s Public Bill Committee, that the difficulty in acquiring sites is one of the main reasons why our housing market is dominated by a small number of large developers at the moment.
To offer the hon. Lady some further reassurance, when deciding whether to grant permission in principle for a particular application, the local authority must make the decision in accordance with its own development plan, which will include any relevant neighbourhood plans in the area, and in line with the national planning policy framework. Permission in principle is not in any way, shape or form an attempt to get around the planning system. It is about trying to provide greater certainty to small developers to try to do something to change our broken housing market and get more SME firms involved in development.
After my having said that these are technical regulations, the hon. Lady asked the perfectly legitimate question of when the main ones will come. I can provide her with some reassurance on that. Our intention is to lay the secondary legislation to introduce permission in principle through brownfield registers and by application on small sites between spring and summer this year, and then to come back with a further piece of secondary legislation that will introduce permission in principle through development plans—local or neighbourhood—shortly after that. That is the timescale in terms of the substantive regulations. I understand that the hon. Lady will no doubt want to scrutinise those carefully, given the concerns she has expressed and the position the official Opposition have adopted on this.
In terms of transparency, we had quite a long debate about viability assessments in Committee on the Neighbourhood Planning Bill and I would not want to rehearse it again here. I will say that the hon. Lady will now have seen the published review of the community infrastructure levy—CIL—and the knock-on implications for section 106 agreements. I hope that she finds that a convincing piece of work. We made it clear in the White Paper that we will be looking to respond to that on an autumn Budget timescale. That may offer a solution to that problem in a way that I hope will command fairly wide support.
The hon. Lady asked about the revocation powers. A local planning authority can modify or revoke whenever it considers it appropriate, having regard to planning policies—both its own planning policies, as set out in its local plan, and the national planning policy framework. The one caveat is that compensation is payable to the landowner for loss caused by the modification or revocation; however, it can be used consistent with national and local planning policy. The hon. Lady also asked what the term “in the vicinity” means. Like many of these terms, ultimately that is a matter for the courts but I can say that both normal planning permissions and permission in principle would show up on local land searches, to reassure her on that front.
The hon. Lady’s final point was about village greens, which was the area of the regulations that caused her the greatest concern. I absolutely agree with my predecessor’s comments about the importance of this legislation; that is why this Government supported those changes in the Localism Act. I reassure her that the changes we are proposing here are not going to undermine further—if I can phrase it that way—the current position because all these regulations will do is, essentially, apply the same rules in relation to an application for permission in principle as already apply, and have been agreed by this House and the other place, in relation to an application for full planning permission. The Committee may want to ask the question: is this going to lead to lots more areas being excluded from the right to apply to register a village green? The Government believe that is unlikely to be the case, and I will take a moment to explain why. If the Government did not bring forward the new permission in principle route, the majority of sites that are likely to be considered for permission in principle would presumably, at some point, come forward for a normal planning application and would therefore fall within the scope of the existing regulations at that point.
I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady most importantly, from my point of view, on the principle at stake here: that permission in principle is not an attempt to get around our planning system. Far from it—it is an attempt to try to fix our broken housing market. I hope I have also answered her detailed concerns on some of the specifics of the regulations.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Overall, that was helpful but I point out to the Minister and the Committee that we are not against the brownfield register. Our main problem with permission in principle is how extensively it is likely to be applied. Had the Government simply said that it would apply to small sites, we would probably have accepted it, but we think that because of the brownfield register, the use particularly in some areas could be extensive. We understand the issues on land banking and for SMEs, which is why we would have accepted the proposal for small sites. What the Minister said about section 106 agreements was helpful, and we look forward to hearing what is said in the Budget, but what is happening on viability needs to be made more transparent.
Lastly, I am glad that the Minister has accepted that there is some undermining of the ability to register a village green. However, because of the reasons I have outlined, we think it is wrong that communities who discover that a piece of land has suddenly been put in a local development plan are not able to apply to have it registered. On that basis, I want to divide the Committee.
Question put.
Petition
Implementation of the 1995 and 2011 Pension Acts
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 9 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
President Trump: State Visit
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
This is a very over-subscribed debate. If all hon. Members stick to five minutes and do not take too many, if any, interventions, everybody should get in.
I remind those in the Public Gallery that this is a Chamber of the House of Commons. By all means listen and observe, but if there is any off-stage noise, I will suspend the sitting and clear the Public Gallery.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 171928 and 178844 relating to a state visit by President Donald Trump.
It is a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of such a distinguished parliamentarian, Mr Walker. I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing me to introduce the petitions. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about their nature. One of them, which has been signed by more than 300,000 people, states:
“Donald Trump should be invited to make an official State Visit because he is the leader of a free world and U.K. is a country that supports free speech and does not believe that people that appose our point of view should be gagged.”
The other petition, which has gained the remarkable total of 1,850,000 signatures in a few days and which has been much misunderstood, states:
“Donald Trump should be allowed to enter the UK in his capacity as head of the US Government, but he should not be invited to make an official State Visit because it would cause embarrassment to Her Majesty the Queen.”
That is a fascinating prospect. The first petition suggests that cancelling the state visit would in some way deprive President Trump of his ability to speak freely, when in recent days we have had a ceaseless incontinence of free speech from him—the man is everywhere, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The other petition is saying not that he should not come here—he should come here, on business or other matters—but that he should not be accorded the rare privilege of a state visit.
Only two Presidents of the United States have been granted a state visit since 1952, yet we are in the extraordinary and completely unprecedented position in which, seven days into his presidency, President Trump has been invited to have the full panoply of a state visit. We can dwell on the reasons for that, but they are nothing to do with the fact that we in this Chamber all hold in great respect the United States’s presidency, constitution and presidential history, which is part of our history. We know how closely our cultures have melded together in the arts—in entertainment, film and cinema we are merging almost into one nation—but we have a direct interest in the presidency of the United States because the President is also the leader of the free world.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman interpret desperation as the reason for the invitation after seven days? If he can see desperation for a trade deal, does he think that President Trump might be able to detect it as well?
Paul Flynn
That word comes to mind when we think of the circumstances of our beleaguered Prime Minister. She is in the great predicament of being the bridge burner who is destroying the bridges between us and Europe. We were told of the possibility of Brexit bumps in the road ahead, but there might turn out to be a Brexit sinkhole into which our economy might plunge in freefall. She had a difficulty: could the bridge burner be the bridge builder? She made an attempt to present herself as someone who was going to act as the link between the presidency and Europe, but as the President of Lithuania quite rightly pointed out, we do not need a link, because we are in constant contact with President Trump through his incessant tweets.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although some of President Trump’s views on women, on race and on religion are very distasteful indeed, the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States of America goes beyond any individual who might happen to occupy the White House at any particular time?
Paul Flynn
I agree entirely. I know that from my own life; my father’s life was ruined by the first world war, and I remember being a child at school during the second world war and seeing the empty desks of children who had been killed by the bombs. We were very grateful for the United States at that time, and we remain grateful. Europe is right to remember that and to recall our gratitude. No country in the whole world has sacrificed the blood of its daughters and sons for democracy in other countries more than the United States.
There is no question of any disrespect towards the United States, but there is a great feeling of concern, which has welled up in this petition. The day after the inauguration, 2 million people, mostly women, marched on the streets of America and 100,000 people marched in this country. It was an expression of fear and anxiety that we had someone like this in the White House wielding such enormous power. The President’s power is enormous, but unfortunately his intellectual capacity is protozoan. We are greatly concerned about the extraordinary actions he has taken. He has blundered into frozen conflicts around the planet that needed delicate handling; they needed the microsurgery of decisions such as those that have been taken in the past by statesmen. He has gone in and caused problems in every area in which he has become involved: the South China sea, Ukraine, and Israel-Palestine.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the expression “grab ’em by the pussy” describes a sexual assault and therefore suggests that President Trump should not be afforded a visit to our Queen?
Paul Flynn
I entirely agree. President Trump’s manner and behaviour throughout the election period were greatly worrying, and his extraordinary reaction to his own inauguration was concerning; I believe that it partly provoked the demonstrations that took place. When he thought he was going to lose, he said that he was going to object to the election on the grounds of fraud, but it is extraordinary for someone to complain when they actually win. He complained about everything. He complained that the rain did not fall—we all saw it fall—and he complained about the number of people in the crowd. He complained and lied about his own result. It is of great concern that the President behaves like a petulant child. How would he behave in a future conflict that might arise?
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s response to Mr Trump’s perhaps ill considered phraseology, but what complaint did he make when Emperor Hirohito, who was responsible for the rape of Nanking, came here?
Paul Flynn
Many people have come here who have been less welcome than others; that is absolutely true. We have had people here who were very unsavoury characters—not from the United States, as it happens—but we certainly should not try to imitate the errors of the past. We should set an example by making sure that we do not make those mistakes again.
As I said, this is a situation of grave concern, and the Prime Minister is in an awkward position. Since the seventh day of Mr Trump’s presidency, things have got far worse. We are now in the 31st day of his presidency. We have seen General Michael Flynn being forced out of office because he could not tell the truth about relations with Russia and could have been a victim of blackmail. That is a very worrying situation, and we know that allegations were made during the election campaign, and as a presidential candidate Trump made an appeal encouraging people to hack the accounts of Hillary Clinton. There may well be a case coming up that will show that the position of the President will be difficult to sustain if he himself is open to blackmail. We also know of the confrontation that took place during the election campaign involving President Obama, who warned that that eventuality was a likely outcome.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
A higher percentage of constituents from Brighton signed the petition than from any other constituency and I am proud to represent them today. Many of them have raised not only Trump’s misogyny and racism but his contempt for basic climate science. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that someone who has shown such effrontery to basic climate science is another reason he should not come here on a state visit?
Paul Flynn
It is extraordinary that Trump, from the cavernous depths of his scientific ignorance, is prepared to challenge the conclusions of 97% of the world experts on this matter. He makes a bad science conspiracy theory conclusion when, apart from the nuclear issue, climate change is the most important issue of our time.
On the nuclear issue, Trump is almost unique in that he believes in nuclear proliferation. He is trying to persuade countries such as South Korea and Japan to acquire their own nuclear weapons. We know that the danger of nuclear war exists not because of the malice of nations but because of the likelihood that it will come by accident—by human error, or by a technical failure similar to the one that happened when one of our missiles headed in the wrong direction towards the United States in a recent test. The more nations that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that that problem will emerge and we could be plunged into a nuclear war.
The question that the petitioners put as a main point is the situation as far as Her Majesty is concerned. A former permanent secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Ricketts, reacted to the invitation by arguing:
“There is no precedent for a US president paying a state visit to this country in their first year”
of office. He is quite right. He said:
“It would have been far wiser to wait to see what sort of president he would turn out to be before advising the Queen to invite him.”
The Queen has been put in a very difficult position, and for that reason alone we should consider this petition, and the Government should consider it, with a bit of humility, to decide what action should take place. They should change the invitation to one for a visit rather than one for a state visit.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman says that the Queen has been put in a difficult position. I know what a great fan of the monarch he is—indeed, he probably has weekly chats with her. What did she actually say to him to lead him to believe that she found the situation difficult?
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. We are not dragging the monarch into this debate. All right, colleagues?
Paul Flynn
I am well aware of the Standing Orders on this matter, but I speak as someone with enormous regard for the Queen. She is my inspiration; she is my example. She is working at an age that is eight years beyond my age, and I will certainly not be so wimpish as to stand down while she continues with her heroic work at her age.
Our main concern is that we are in this position of surrealism, of an Orwellian world that is unfolding before us, where the theme that has been put forward by Trump is that lies are the truth, good is bad, war is peace and fantasy is fact. We see that with the figure of the Trump Big Brother, who is there, ever-present seven days a week and 24 hours a day, preaching from his one source of news—the only voice of truth.
Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the proposed ban is clearly completely absurd, there is something quite refreshing about a politician actually doing what they said they would do before they were elected? The ban is ridiculous, but it is a reaction to the chaos caused in the middle east by previous generations of politicians, which in my view is far worse than anything that Trump has done, and for which many of the people in this Chamber voted. Where is the hon. Gentleman’s respect for the will of the American people?
Paul Flynn
The will of the American people has changed rapidly within the last seven days. The position now is—[Interruption.] Well, get the facts. The position today is that Trump’s standing is at minus 18, which is precisely the level of support held by Richard Nixon on the day that he resigned his presidency. Trump is at rock bottom. He is the least popular American President ever in this country—hon. Members can go through the figures—and rightly has a low level of approval.
What we are doing, and what this debate is doing, is taking notice of what the public say. We will not be in a position where we ignore public opinion or where we seem insensitive to democratic decisions. That was the reason why many of us, with heavy hearts, voted for article 50 last week. We cannot allow, as happened in America, that gulf to appear in this country between politicians and what is seen as public opinion. That led to the election of Trump, and if we ignore what is being said in petitions and do not take action, the public will greet us with the same cynicism, see us as distant and look to elect non-politicians.
The great overarching topic on Brexit and on this issue is that we must maintain respect for politicians, and we must not see an increase in the divisions and in the lack of trust that has existed in this country. During the expenses scandal, our reputation in this House was at rock bottom; now it is subterranean. We have got to work to change it. Andrew Rawnsley, a very distinguished journalist, has said:
“Some ministers mutter that the big mistake was to issue the invitation to make an early state visit to Britain, a notion conceived as a way of flattering his colossal vanities. At the very least, it would have been prudent to wait before rolling the royal red carpet. Pimping out the Queen for Donald Trump. This, apparently, is what they meant by getting our sovereignty back.”
Those are the words of Andrew Rawnsley, which I am quoting.
Mr Rees-Mogg
On a point of order, Mr Walker. I do not think it is in order to refer to pimping out our sovereign, even if someone is quoting a journalist, however distinguished.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I am sure that is not what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) meant. What he did mean, when he talked to me a few moments ago, was that he would speak for only 15 minutes. Can we get to the wind-up please, Mr Flynn?
Paul Flynn
Yes, fine, Mr Walker. The wind-up is a simple one. This is a great chance to be here and to start off this debate, but I know there are many people who also have contributions to make on the subject.
We are in a position unlike any faced by any previous Parliament, whereby a person of a unique personality is running the United States. There are great dangers in attempting to give him the best accolade we can offer anyone—a state visit—which, as I have said, has been offered only twice before. That would be terribly wrong, because it would make it appear that the British Parliament, the British nation and the British sovereign approve of the acts of Donald J. Trump.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. I call Nigel Evans. There is a five-minute time limit.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Walker. It is a delight to be under your chairmanship.
I suppose 2016 was a seismic year in many ways. For those of us in the Chamber who actually believe in democracy, I did not actually realise that there were so many different interpretations of it. We have seen that in the last week. In 2015, we had the election of a Conservative Government, which clearly hit a lot of people hard, and then we had Brexit, with which people are coming to terms or not in their own way. We then had the election of Donald Trump.
I advise anyone who is interested to go to YouTube and find the “Newsnight” video that shows the leading lights of the United States of America, from Nancy Pelosi and George Clooney to Harry Reid and others, all saying that there is no chance that this man will ever become President of the United States, interspersed with footage of the inauguration of Donald John Trump. They sneer when they say it. Why? Right at the end, the video says: “The United States has a new President. His name is Donald John Trump”. To those people who are finding it difficult to come to terms with Brexit, I say that we are leaving the European Union. That is what the people decided. To those who are finding it difficult to understand that the American people voted for Donald Trump, I say get over it, because he is President of the United States.
We must all ask ourselves why people felt so left behind that they made the democratic decisions they did. Some of us cannot understand some of those decisions. How could people possibly vote for Brexit? How could they possibly vote for Donald Trump? The fact is that the people have done so. They were the forgotten people. Just as we have forgotten people in the United Kingdom, there are forgotten people in the United States of America. They are the ones who packed that stadium on Saturday to cheer Donald Trump after his first month in the presidency, because they like what he says. We might not like some of the things he says. I certainly do not like some of what he has said in the past, but I respect the fact that he is now delivering the platform on which he stood. He will go down in history as the only politician roundly condemned for delivering on his promises. I know this is a peculiar thing in the politics we are used to here—politicians standing up for something and delivering—but that is what Trump is doing.
We can all go back and talk to the people we know in our own little echo chambers—all we hear are the same things—but the fact is that 61 million people voted for Donald Trump. When we stand up in this country and condemn him for being racist—I have seen no evidence of his being racist—or attack him in an unseemly way, we are attacking the American people and the 61 million who voted for Donald Trump. If they wanted more of the same or the usual stuff, it was on the ballot paper, but they decided, by a majority of states in the electoral college as it works, that they wanted Donald Trump.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
My hon. Friend keeps talking about the 63 million people who voted for Donald Trump, but people forget that Hillary Clinton got nearly 66 million votes.
Mr Evans
I absolutely agree. She piled the votes up in liberal California and liberal New York and the east coast, but that is not how the system works. My right hon. Friend is an expert in American politics and he knows how it works. The fact is that that is part of the checks and balances. Donald Trump knew how it worked. It was the people in the middle of America who felt left behind—they were referred to as the deplorables. They felt left behind by Administration after Administration, irrespective of colour, and decided to put Donald Trump in.
We have limited time, but one thing I will say is that I hope people will condemn the trolling of Barron Trump and Melania Trump. We talk about sexism and racism. The racism that Melania Trump has had to put up with since Donald Trump became President is appalling. She read the Lord’s prayer on Saturday in Florida, and the number of people who had a go at her for doing it and for the fact that she is from Slovenia and does not have an American accent is appalling. Let us hear a bit of parity.
I do not want this House to be brought into disrepute, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, regarding double standards. We can refer to all the things about Donald Trump, as some people have, even though he was democratically elected. Xi Jinping was here last year. Where were the demonstrations then? How many votes did Xi Jinping get? How many votes? We had a state visit from a Chinese leader 10 years after Tiananmen Square and there have been a lot of other state visits over the years. It is double standards. It is simply because people in this room, and perhaps in this country, cannot understand why the people voted for Donald Trump, and why people voted for Brexit. Until they understand that, I am afraid there will be more of the same. The people who feel left behind have spoken, and they have voted for Donald John Trump.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
When members of the public have spent a long time thinking about an issue and calling for a debate, I would hope that some of us might try to be above party politics. This debate cuts to the heart of the nature of our democracy and of how we honour and celebrate other countries, which is why it is important to reflect on whether it is right, after seven days, that Donald Trump be afforded a full state visit.
I am a great friend of the United States. My father is buried in the United States. I studied in the United States. I worked in the United States. I have visited America more times than I have visited France; it is a country I love tremendously. I suspect that all of us in the Chamber are well aware of the British people’s deep connection with and affection for America and its people, but we are also aware of the challenges that exist in that country and the contentious manner of the election that led to Donald Trump’s becoming President. One would expect, I think, the leader of the free world to come to Britain, but the issue is about the terms and the basis on which that is done. An official visit might have been appropriate, but to afford this man, after seven days, a state visit is why so many people have petitioned.
Mr Lammy
I will not give way; I have only five minutes.
I am here because I want to remind the Chamber about the path that America has taken and about the contribution of African Americans in the United States. Many African Americans there are sitting at home in fear. They are concerned about a President who has had the support of the Ku Klux Klan. They are concerned about a President who has welcomed white supremacists—a term we had almost hoped would fall into history—into his close inner circle. They look at events such as Black History Month. Think about how our own Prime Ministers of different political stripes respond to such things and the sort of statements they make, and look at what Donald Trump said and how he made the event all about himself. Seven days, and he gets the full panoply of the state. Really?
I think of my five-year-old daughter when I reflect on a man who considers it okay to go and “grab pussy”, a man who considers it okay to be misogynistic towards the woman he is running against. Frankly, I cannot imagine a leader of this country, of whatever political stripe, behaving in that manner. People are offended and concerned that Britain should abandon all its principles and afford this man a state visit after seven days. Really? And why? Is this great country so desperate for a trade deal that we would throw all of our own history out of the window? We did not do it for Kennedy, Truman or Reagan, but to this man, after seven days, we say, “Please come and we will lay on everything because we are so desperate for your company”. I think this country is greater than that. I think my children deserve better than that. I think my daughter deserves better than that. I am ashamed, frankly, that it has come to this. We should think very carefully about a President whose attitude towards the press is, as we are finding out, abhorrent. We should think very carefully about a President who has said the things he has said. He has put so many people in fear through his statements. For that reason, we should not afford him a state visit.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Having been born at the mid-point of the 20th century, I think it is appropriate to look at what happened in Anglo-American relations and European-American relations before and after the 1950s. Before the 1950s, we had two opportunities for a world war, and both times a world war took place. From the 1950s onwards, we had one opportunity for another world war, and that world war did not take place.
We can all have theories about why there were world wars between 1914 and 1918 and between 1939 and 1945 and why the cold war did not become world war three. For what it is worth, I will give my theory. In 1914, it was possible for an aggressor to think it could pick off a small state such as Belgium without triggering a conflict from day one with the United States of America. In 1939, it was possible for an aggressor to think it could pick off a small state such as Poland without triggering a world war with the United States from day one. However, from the signing of the NATO treaty in 1949 onwards, it was no longer possible for any aggressor to think it could launch an attack against any European or non-European NATO member state without immediately being at war with the world’s greatest superpower. For me, that is the single most important consideration.
This debate ought to be about more than the personal qualities of any individual. I would like people to ask themselves this as a matter of conscience: if they knew that it would make a significant difference to bringing on side a new President of the United States of America so that the policies that prevented a conflagration on that scale continue—given he is in some doubt about continuing the alliance that prevented world war three and is our best guarantee of world war three not breaking out in the 21st century—do they really think it is more important to berate him, castigate him and encourage him to retreat into some sort of bunker, rather than to do what the Prime Minister did, perhaps more literally than any of us expected, and take him by the hand to try to lead him down the paths of righteousness? I have no doubt at all about the matter.
What really matters to the future of Europe is that the transatlantic alliance continues and prospers. There is every prospect of that happening provided that we reach out to this inexperienced individual and try to persuade him—there is every chance of persuading him —to continue with the policy pursued by his predecessors.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. It is right and proper that we are debating the issue, but given his views, why does he support Mr Speaker saying that Trump should not come here? There is a case for that, but it is incongruent with the argument my right hon. Friend is making.
Dr Lewis
I am pleased to say that this is a debate about President Trump and whether he should come here. I believe that it is entirely right that he should come here. Therefore, issues about any extraneous matters are matters for debate perhaps at another time in another place, but not here or now.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but on what basis does he think giving President Trump a state visit will have the effect he believes? We have already told him he can have one, and just this weekend we hear him again talking about walking away from NATO.
Dr Lewis
I am not at all aware that he has talked about walking away from NATO. On the contrary, he has made two criticisms of NATO. One is that he believes that NATO has adapted insufficiently to meet the threat of international terrorism and is too solely focused on state-versus-state confrontation. The other criticism he has made is—if it is an extreme view, it is one shared by the Defence Select Committee—that countries are not spending enough on defence. He has rightly pointed out, as has his Secretary of Defence, that only five out of 28 NATO countries are paying even the 2% of GDP—which is not a target, but a minimum guideline. The failure of NATO countries to pay to protect themselves has been remarked upon time and again to no effect.
I finish with a point that may be strange to relate, but stranger things have happened in history: it may be that the only way to get NATO countries to pay up what they should in order to get the huge advantage of the American defence contribution—they spend 3.5% of their much larger GDP while so many of our NATO fellow member countries do not spend even 2% of their much smaller GDPs—is Donald Trump’s threat. If that is so, Donald Trump, ironically, may end up being the saviour of NATO, not its nemesis.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
I am particularly pleased to be able to attend a debate opened at length by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). In fact, hearing him speak at length is justification in itself for the petitions process. I particularly enjoyed his putdown of the whippersnappers on the Tory Benches who are paying insufficient regard to the experience of the hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty the Queen. I thought that was one of the highlights of the debate thus far.
It is difficult to know whether to be appalled at the morality of the invitation or just astonished by its stupidity. If I may disagree with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for a second, the Prime Minister’s holding-hands-across-the-ocean visit would be difficult to match as an example of fawning subservience, but to do it in the name of shared values was stomach-churning. What exactly are the shared values that this House and this country would hope to have with President Trump? Exemplifying what shared values are is a process that is fraught with danger, but the Prime Minister tried it when she was Home Secretary. She said that they were:
“Things like democracy…a belief in the rule of law, a belief in tolerance for other people, equality, an acceptance of other people’s faiths and religions.”
Which of those values, as outlined by the Prime Minister, has President Trump exemplified in his first 30 days in office?
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Given President Trump’s remarks about torture, his misogynistic stance against women and his stance against Muslims, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that associating with the President in the form of a state visit will do huge amounts of damage to the Queen and to our monarchy, which is respected and revered around the world? The Government should have a Government-to-Government visit and leave Her Majesty out of this.
Alex Salmond
I do agree. Also, I note that, according to one newspaper report, Trump’s acolytes have started to choose which members of the royal family they would meet on a state visit. It said he was not going to meet Prince Charles in case the conversation turned to climate change. Somebody who has been accorded the privilege of a state visit picking and choosing which members of the royal family to meet is a world first.
James Duddridge
When the right hon. Gentleman met Donald Trump and welcomed him to Scotland in 2006, did he express the same views?
Alex Salmond
I have actually met Donald Trump more than once, which gives me an advantage over, I think, every other Member in the Chamber. I have also negotiated with Donald Trump, which perhaps gives me an additional advantage, to instruct the hon. Gentleman. We should remember that President Trump is not a stupid man. The belief that he has forgotten what the Prime Minister or her supporting staff said about him when he was a candidate is nonsensical, and the Foreign Secretary said he would not go to New York in case he was confused with him. To believe that Donald Trump has forgotten those things is to seriously underrate the man’s intelligence. To paraphrase P. G. Wodehouse, it is not difficult to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and Donald Trump with a grievance. I know about that from my experience of the American President, which brings me to the act of stupidity involved in the invitation.
Even when people are in a weak negotiating position, as the UK is at the moment thanks to the nonsensical decision to invoke article 50 without having at least some idea of where the negotiations will end up—I see Brexiteers shaking their heads, but I was quoting almost exactly from the Vote Leave website, which said that doing that would be like putting a gun to our own head. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Government have chosen to do. To put ourselves in a weak negotiating position and then advertise it so blatantly to President Trump, as the Prime Minister managed to do, is a recipe for total and utter disaster. From my experience of negotiating with Donald Trump, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we should never, ever do it from a weak position, because the result will be total disaster.
Like the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau is relatively new to his office, yet he has demonstrated how to pursue a business relationship while keeping Canada’s integrity intact. The Prime Minister should take note and rescind the state visit before any more embarrassment and division is caused in this country.
To allow this process to be the pretext for another assault on Mr Speaker—this has already been mentioned in the debate, Mr Walker—is beyond madness. This new gunpowder plot will fizzle out as surely as the last one did. What we should demand from Mr Speaker is fairness to all parts of the House, the ability for all people to be heard—
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Salmond, we are not having a debate about Mr Speaker, and that goes for all Members. You have made your point. Please return to the substance of the debate, which is Mr Trump’s visit.
Alex Salmond
Mr Walker, I was replying to a point that you allowed to be made in the debate earlier. I will simply state my opinion that parties in this House will not allow Mr Speaker to be removed on this issue. I think that is perfectly in order, sir.
On the point about debasing the shared values that we are meant to have with the United States of America—the point was well made by the hon. the Member for Newport West that in 30 days the President has managed to achieve a record low in the Gallup ratings—the United States of America has not been invited on a state visit. The state visit invitation is to President Trump the individual. To confuse the two is a serious mistake by hon. Members and others who support the offer. I speak from my experience of negotiating with the man in saying that to do so from a position of weakness will not result in a face-saving, life-saving augmented trade deal. It will be a route to and a recipe for total disaster for this country. The state visit invitation should be rescinded before any further damage is caused.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your highly tuned chairmanship, Mr Walker. I do not normally speak on foreign policy matters, but I feel duty-bound to speak because so many of my constituents have signed the petition. I have some sympathy with them. They are entitled to sign the petition against the state visit. As has been said, some of the things that Donald Trump has said are extremely offensive, but what concerns me is the points of substance, such as the ambiguity about NATO. That is what we should be worried about.
What we are debating here is UK foreign policy, which is best served by following the national interest, not through gestures or knee-jerk reactions. We need calm, effective diplomacy done in the old-fashioned way, often behind the scenes. We need to work towards a long-term strategy, rather than something redolent of student politics and gestures that get us nowhere. We need to focus on the strategic points, to which there are two parts. The first is the recognition that we need to be as close to the US Administration as possible. If we have concerns—hon. Members clearly have concerns about President Trump—we should be trying to shape his Administration rather than rescinding an offer that was sent and accepted in good faith.
My second point on strategy is to understand who wins if we rescind the offer. We will gain nothing if we withdraw the offer. I can tell Members who will win—there is one man: Vladimir Putin. There will be smiles all round the Kremlin if we follow the suggestion in the petition, because the one thing it wants above all else is to divide the west. It wants the UK and the US to be divided. It does not want a strong transatlantic partnership. I am talking not just about our interest but the global interest in saying that we would be crackers to withdraw the invitation. In fact, I would offer a state visit to Vladimir Putin, as Tony Blair did, despite the fact that Russian Bear bombers are buzzing our airspace and the fact that the Russians have nuclear missiles pointed at us and pose a huge threat. That is precisely why we offer invitations—because we want to influence an Administration.
Mr Nigel Evans
My hon. Friend is quite right that everyone wants us to influence the US Administration. Is he not buoyed up by the fact that Donald Trump has taken the opposite position to that of Obama, who came here during our referendum and told us that we would be at the back of the queue for a trade deal? He tried to influence our referendum, whereas Donald Trump has said that he wants to see us at the front of the queue for a trade deal.
James Cartlidge
The referendum is done and dusted, of course, and we have some interesting days ahead in the other place. I campaigned to remain in the EU, but when President Obama spoke about the referendum, it was a gift to the leave campaign. The issue today, however, is Donald Trump. As I said, I would invite Vladimir Putin for a state visit. For me, people can say offensive things and represent terrible values—Russia is not a serious democracy, and it has a terrible human rights record—but our foreign policy is about the national interest of the United Kingdom. That means being as strong as possible and having as much influence as possible on countries that are the major global players. I conclude by saying we will serve this country best by sticking to the invitation we have made instead of making ourselves a laughing stock to the countries that matter.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for opening the debate on the two petitions. I am absolutely delighted that nearly 4,000 of my constituents signed the petition that argued that Donald Trump should not be given a state visit. They are a part of the 1.8 million who signed across the country. It tallies with the concerns raised with me in person in recent weeks. I have had people contact me directly about the matter. Ultimately, I speak for my constituents and I know where they firmly stand.
I love America and Americans. I have travelled to 25 of the 50 states. My grandfather was an American GI who came here in 1944 to help us fight the Nazis. We do not know much about him, but he came over here. I have walked with Government Members on the beaches of Normandy and along Omaha beach and other places where many Americans sacrificed their lives in the service of the freedoms of Europe and our country.
We should have contact with any American Administration. Much as I disagreed fundamentally with the policies and actions of President George W. Bush, I was deeply disappointed that that turned for many into a wider strand of anti-Americanism and anger towards America and Americans. In fact, America at its greatest is a place that espouses the very best of liberty and equality. At its best it has an optimistic Government that allows all people to have freedom. It allows freedom in the press and in the courts, and allows the exercise of democracy at state, local and federal level. It is for that reason that I feel deeply concerned and frightened when I see the very principles on which the founding fathers developed the constitution being called into question by a President. Indeed, he has done so in recent days with attacks on the press, the judiciary, religious freedoms and other parts of the Government that disagree with him. That is what I am most worried and fearful about, and I think we are right to be so.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is as much about our Prime Minister as about the American President, and that this apparent cosying-up to people with questionable values or records—not only Trump but Erdogan the day after and Netanyahu recently—has compromised our ability to be a critical friend?
Stephen Doughty
It is not an easy job to be Prime Minister and to deal with Governments. The nature and difficulties of diplomacy mean that we often have to have contact, for wider national and global interests, with people with whom we fundamentally disagree, but herein lies the fundamental point. This is not about whether Donald Trump should be banned from coming to this country or whether our Government should have contact with him—indeed, it is absolutely right that the Prime Minister meets the President to discuss matters of mutual interest. We choose whom we honour, the way in which we honour them and the way in which we negotiate. I note the comments of the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond): we choose how we engage. Prime Minister Trudeau has shown a very different way of dealing with President Trump and has maintained his integrity while retaining contact.
The fundamental issue is that we have rushed into offering the Palace, the Mall, the razzmatazz, the champagne and the red carpet. Even if one were the ultimate pragmatist for whom the matters of equality or of standing against torture, racism and sexism do not matter, giving it all up in week 1 on a plate with no questions asked would not be a sensible negotiating strategy. How can that make sense to anybody—even those who argue that we should have a strong relationship with the United States?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Obama was invited here—people should not forget that he was the first Afro-American President—but he stood for something totally different. Donald Trump so far does not seem to share our values, so we should have waited at least two years to see how his presidency pans out before we came to a judgment.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed. That is why I have spoken out so strongly on using the Palace of Westminster, and particularly Westminster Hall, given that that is where President Mandela and President Obama addressed us, where Pope Benedict came and where Churchill lay in state. It is a rare and special honour, and I am absolutely delighted that this is the most signed petition of this Session and that it has support from all parts of the House.
We need to look at the issue of state visits again. Many people have rightly pointed out whom we have offered state visits to in the past and asked whether that was right. There were protests when President Xi was here, and I strongly disagree with much of the way we have fawned over some of the monarchies in the Gulf. That does not mean we should not have diplomatic relations and strong relationships with them, but I am concerned about the way we seem to have turned a blind eye to a whole series of issues. We need to look very carefully at how we choose to use what ultimately is a significant amount of taxpayers’ money, and at the categories and types of visits we offer and how we offer them. Many of us question whether Aung San Suu Kyi should have addressed us, given some of the concerns we have about the Burmese Government’s policies at present. We can have great hindsight, but just because we have got things wrong in the past does not mean we should not get things right in the future.
We have a special responsibility when it comes to the special relationship with our greatest ally and friend. We cannot accept the denigration of the free press, the judiciary, women and religious minorities, the banning of refugees and the advocacy of torture as the new normal. It would not be acceptable from any country, and it is certainly not acceptable from our greatest ally and one of the countries that has frequently stood up for the values of liberty, equality, democracy and the rights and equality of all before the law. That is why we have a special responsibility in this House to speak out.
Ultimately, I have great faith in the way the American constitution was set up. In 1788, James Madison said:
“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one…in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.”
We, too, should check and balance our ally, but offering up a state visit and all these honours in week 1 of Donald Trump’s already turbulent presidency is not the way to do it.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
I guess I should start by declaring an interest: not simply do I have a deep antipathy towards President Trump, but I was prepared to more than just talk about it and I spent a considerable amount of time last year working for Hillary Clinton on her presidential campaign in New Hampshire, Wisconsin and South Carolina. I believed, as President Obama did during the 2016 campaign, that she was the most qualified candidate to run for President in the 20th century. As every day goes by—not least the past seven days—I am deeply grieved to see the opportunity that America sadly passed up for the person it chose, but we are where we are. Hillary Clinton got 2.8 million more votes, but the Americans elect their President not through who gets the most votes but through the electoral college. Those are the rules, and there is no point crying over spilled milk.
I will not rehearse all the reasons why any reasonable person should have significant doubts about Donald Trump, because they are sadly too well known. America has been our greatest ally for a considerable time: it stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us in our hour of need, as we did in its hour of need, particularly during 9/11, so it is to my mind foolish to allow our personal views and assessments of the more grotesque characteristics or behaviour of an individual to blur what is in Britain’s national interest. I believe it is in Britain’s national interest to continue the special relationship, as we did under most Prime Ministers since the second world war, with the possible exception of Sir Edward Heath.
Mr Lammy
I know the right hon. Gentleman’s deep affection for the United States—indeed, I have been with him at Democratic conventions in the past—but is the natural conclusion of his argument that the more offensive the American President and the more concerned we are as a nation about the person who has been elected, the quicker we should rush to give them a state visit? Is this debate really about the nature of how Donald Trump should come to this country?
Sir Simon Burns
If the right hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will get on to the timing. He makes a valid point.
Regardless of what we think of Donald Trump as a man, I believe it is in our national interest to ensure we continue to be a candid friend to the United States. We should be respected by the United States and have the ability to talk to it candidly and explain when we believe it is getting it wrong or could be doing it better. We should ensure that it moderates its views to something more in keeping with what we believe is dignified and the correct way to behave. We cannot do that if we totally ignore the United States, write off the presidency and say, “The man is dreadful, so we shall have nothing to do with him.” We would become isolated and less influential, and that would not be in our national interest.
A number of hon. Members during the debate and outside the Chamber have questioned the timing. Frankly, it does not matter when one issues an invitation if one is trying to protect and develop our national interest. If we do it seven days into a presidency, we will be criticised; if we do it in 2020, we will be criticised for playing around with the American electoral system and helping the man in his presumed re-election bid.
Alex Salmond
In delaying the invitation for a state visit, we would at least have the advantage of knowing the President will still be there.
Sir Simon Burns
The right hon. Gentleman may be better at looking into a crystal ball than I am. None of us, frankly, can predict what will happen next week, let alone next year, the year after or the year after that. He might be right, but I agree with him that the beginning has not been auspicious in any shape or form. It is a bit like the Bible—one always admires a sinner who repents—and we will have to see whether the people around President Trump are able to moderate and guide him, although I am not convinced that they will be as successful as others might be.
That, however, is not the point. The point is that, whenever the invitation is extended, or whenever a visit takes place, there will be criticism by those who wish to criticise. We have to rise above that. We have to look at what will be helpful for Britain and its future policy and development. It is a no-brainer that working closely with the United States is far more important for this country, in particular as we begin negotiations and the exit from the European Union in two or two and a half years’ time. We cannot afford to be isolated or to ignore our friends to stand alone, thinking that we will thereby ensure that everything works out all right, because more often than not it will not.
Loyalty has always been a key mark of this country, whether under a Conservative or a Labour Prime Minister. Some would argue that in the past at times we have been too loyal. I will not intrude on the grief with regard to 2001 to about 2006, but that was a difficult time and perhaps we got it wrong in how we talked as a candid friend to the previous-but-one President. We all learn from our mistakes, however, and I believe that we have the opportunity, by giving respect to the institution of the presidency of the United States from the start, to continue to work with the United States. That will pay benefits to this country and to America, and it is the right thing to do. The state visit should go ahead, although I have to say—this may come as a surprise to some—I agree with Mr Speaker that there should not be an address in Westminster Hall to a joint session of Parliament.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.
The subject feels like one we have debated many times since Donald Trump was inaugurated a month ago today. I take the opportunity to thank every single one of my constituents who has used the petition to have their voice heard. Just over 3,500 of them have signed the e-petition on preventing Donald Trump’s state visit, which amounts to nearly 60 people out of every 1,000 registered voters in Bradford West.
What we have seen in the past 31 days has in many ways been chilling, with the executive orders that have dominated Donald Trump’s first weeks in the White House being frightening. Many of us are asking where the slippery slope really leads. To take only one of the groups of people where he has sought to divide—those of the Muslim faith, not necessarily distinct to one country or another—his rhetoric has been so broad that I personally, as a Muslim, feel attacked and misrepresented. No doubt many of my constituents, who daily make a wonderful contribution to this country, feel the same. We have to take every opportunity to show that his negativity and divisive messages will not divide us and, just as importantly, will not define us.
British Muslims make an invaluable contribution to the whole of the UK in all forms and walks of life, from doctors to teachers and from business owners to professionals, adding immense cultural value as part of the rich fabric of modern British life. To allow Trump the space to deride and divide a group that plays such a huge role in our society would be a shame on us all. A 2013 report by the Muslim Council of Britain put an economic value on British Muslims’ contribution to the UK—an estimated £31 billion-plus—and stated that as a group they have more than £20.5 billion in spending power. In 2013 in London alone, 13,400 Muslim-owned businesses created more than 70,000 jobs. That is a glimpse of the real impact that Muslims have on this country and that is how Muslims should be portrayed, not in the fearful, racist, bigoted views of someone who has used fear to win votes.
Rushanara Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is deeply saddening and shameful that colleagues who are defending the state visit do not recognise the serious concerns expressed particularly by Muslims, but also by many other communities, about the dangers of the rhetoric of Donald Trump? It is time that those colleagues spoke out against that kind of hostility, which is deeply divisive. It is time for them to address the issue, instead of making excuses and being apologists for his hatred.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
I happily take up the challenge of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). Donald Trump’s attitude to Muslims is an outrage, and what is most outrageous is the total lack of evidence for his actions. All of the deaths caused by terrorists on US soil since 9/11 have been caused by US citizens or residents, and even the 9/11 attacks were made by people from outside the US but from none of the seven countries. The order was not only prejudiced, but totally lacked any evidence.
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those very valid points.
Last year, in this very Chamber when we first debated a potential ban on Trump visiting the UK, I went on public record to say that I wanted him to come, because I wanted him to visit Bradford West. I invited him out for a curry and I wanted him to see the contribution that Muslims make to this country and to my constituency. I wanted him to meet real Muslims, not the ones he has invented for his own ends. I wanted him to walk down the street and meet people such as Chief Superintendent Mabs Hussain, who was born in my constituency. I wanted to take him to schools such as Iqra Primary School to meet a Muslim headteacher. I wanted him to visit health professionals in places such as Sahara and Lister pharmacies, and to see Muslims on the frontline in our healthcare services.
I also wanted Donald Trump to see some of the tremendous businesses in my constituency that are run by Muslims, providing jobs and growth, such as Lala’s, EnKahnz, MyLahore and many others. I wanted to show the world the cultural impact of Muslims in my constituency through events such as the amazing Bradford literature festival that is run by two extraordinary Muslim women, or the annual world curry festival organised by a Muslim man. But to do so now, now that he is President, would only reinforce and condone his actions and his divisive, racist and sexist messages.
Sadly, that is what Donald Trump represents at this moment, which flies in the face of everything we stand for and everything we thought we shared. We cannot support what he is doing by offering him legitimacy. During the debate we have touched on double standards, but the difference in our conversation is that the British people are aware of the human rights violations or the misogyny in China, for example, when we have a state visit from its President. However, we do not look to China for its record, for its advice and support on human rights issues, or for how to treat women, but we do look to America. We look to the United States of America, the leader of the free world, to support us in those shared values. The new President does not represent those shared values that belong to all of us, including this House. Even my children have seen the movies showing women throwing themselves on the cobbles outside this building to get the right to vote in this country, and we saw what happened with the civil rights movement.
When I spoke about this subject in the main Chamber, I talked about the first three steps to genocide, as defined in a booklet by the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. We are already on step three. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) says that we might stop world war three, but what do we actually contribute by allowing President Trump to continue using rhetoric that divides people and tells us that Muslims are the enemy within? As a Muslim in this House, I am not an enemy of western democracy; I am part of western democracy. I fought really hard to be elected. I fought against bigotry, sexism and the patriarchy to earn my place in this House. By allowing Donald Trump a state visit and bringing out the china crockery and the red carpet, we endorse all those things that I fought hard against and say, “Do you know what? It’s okay.” I give my heartfelt thanks to the millions of people who signed the petition and I really hope that we do not honour this President.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Walker, for the invitation to take part in this debate, which the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) opened so energetically. He referred to our “beleaguered” Prime Minister. I look forward to the authority that she exerts when she is not quite so beleaguered. I am still puzzling about what he meant by “protozoan”. I will come back to the power exercised by the President, but first we should take a reality check. An invitation has been issued in the name of Her Majesty, and if we wanted to find a way of embarrassing her, withdrawing that invitation would be the quickest way about it. We are left in a situation where the formal word of Her Majesty, but also that of the United Kingdom, is engaged.
Let us get to the realpolitik behind this. It is very likely that opening up the possibility of an invitation for a state visit secured our Prime Minister the first call on the newly elected President of the United States. During her visit, she got the incredibly important assurance about NATO that was so expertly referred to by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I heard the hon. Gentleman being interviewed on Radio Scotland this morning. He said then what he has just said: that it was very likely that the Prime Minister had used the offer of a state visit to secure the first visit to Trump. Can he confirm his source for that statement?
Crispin Blunt
I am simply using my own assessment and my experience from my own career of how such matters are arranged to say what might have happened. I am happy to confirm that I have no first-hand evidence of the discussions; I merely use my experience to say what might have happened. However, the Prime Minister secured that first visit. She secured the undertaking about NATO, which is immensely important to Europe’s security; she got a reaffirmation of the special relationship by being the first foreign leader to visit President Trump; and, the day before meeting the President, she gave a spectacularly successful address to the Republican caucus in Philadelphia.
We must understand what is going on. We are dealing with the first non-politician and the first non-serviceman to be elected President. He is definitively different. Dangling a state visit in front of a half-Scottish President of the United States, whose mother had an immense attachment to that country, was an exercise in pressing the right buttons to engage him and a successful use of the United Kingdom’s soft power.
The Prime Minister secured the undertaking about NATO, but let us also understand the checks and balances that this President will have to operate under. First, he will need to operate under the checks and balances that come from Congress, and the Republican caucus in Congress will be immensely important in that. For our Prime Minister to have secured a place where she has an opportunity, in effect, to put our case, which may be aligned with that of the State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA, to the White House—
Crispin Blunt
I will if the right hon. Gentleman is brief, because his intervention will come out of injury time.
Alex Salmond
The hon. Gentleman continues seriously to underrate President Trump. The idea that this President will have things determined by anything other than his own interests and what he perceives the American interest to be is a mistake of such naivety—naivety that explains the fact that he managed to get into the White House in the first place.
Crispin Blunt
I draw the right hon. Gentleman’s attention to what is actually happening. This President, who comes from an area where he was not disciplined in the requirements of our profession or those of the services, is issuing undisciplined statements. What has he had to say about torture? He has said that he will concede his judgment to that of his Defence Secretary. I was told cheerfully by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender friends of mine that he was about to rescind employment protection for LGBT people in the United States. He did not, as it happens. Who won out in the row between his national security adviser and his vice-president? His vice-president. The immigration ban is being overturned by the judges—another element of the separation of powers in the United States. We are seeing this Administration develop following the extraordinary and unprecedented election of this individual to the presidency.
Crispin Blunt
Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I do not? I am out of injury time.
The point I am making is that these are early days, and the need for a disciplined Administration is beginning to crowd in on this President. We will see how things develop, but it is incredibly important that our Prime Minister secured the first visit of a foreign leader to the White House.
The truth is that we need to calm and take the hype out of this debate—not just the debate in this Chamber but, frankly, the national debate. The invitation has been issued. I do not think that it should or could properly be rescinded, so there is the possibility that it will be taken up this year. I think that would be a mistake. We need to point out that 2020 will be the 400th anniversary of one of the most remarkable events in British-American history: the pilgrim fathers’ settlement. That is incredibly important in the United States, and it would be an utterly appropriate moment to be marked by a state visit to the United Kingdom by whoever is the US Head of State at that time. We should focus the Administration’s attention on that opportunity. A Head of Government visit this year would be entirely appropriate. If we do not take the hype out of this debate, given the number of people who signed the petition, there is every possibility that the President’s visit will become a rallying point for everyone who is unhappy with the direction of American policy or British policy, or anything else, and the poor old commissioner of the Met will be left with a rather significant public order issue to manage.
There is an opportunity to look forward and celebrate a great anniversary in British-American relations, and extract ourselves from the practical difficulty of the invitation having been issued. But issuing that invitation secured a reaffirmation of the special relationship, a commitment by the President of the United States to NATO—that was reinforced in Europe this weekend by senior members of his Administration—and an opportunity for us to reinforce the voices in the White House of the State Department, the Republican caucus, the Pentagon and the CIA, and that was infinitely the right thing to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. A number of colleagues have intervened who have already spoken. I know that this is a debate, but if they desist from intervening, we may get everyone from their own parties in.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am pleased to speak on behalf of the thousands of my constituents who signed the petition objecting to Donald Trump being invited to the UK for a state visit, as well as the large number who contacted me to say that they did not wish to sign that petition but strongly objected to a state visit.
Many of the people who contacted me said that they had never signed a petition before, but they felt so strongly that the invitation was wrong that they had done so. No wonder they were concerned. What on earth have things come to when the UK Government think for one second that it is appropriate to reward the disgraceful statements and actions of President Trump with a state visit and all the pomp, ceremony and fantoosherie of the British establishment?
It is hugely depressing to hear those on the Conservative Benches who support the state visit yet again telling us that it is important that we engage with President Trump because America is our friend. So it is, but that is why we should challenge this. President Trump’s Administration so far has been characterised by ignorance and prejudice, seeking to ban Muslims and deny refuge to people fleeing from war and persecution. That is what he said and that is what he has done, and that is simply racism. The Prime Minister has decided that she will take any friend she can get for her hard Tory Brexit, and to hang with the refugees, to hang with the Muslims and to hang with anyone who is different. To hang with our EU nationals, to hang with women and Mexicans, and to hang with people fleeing war and terror. That is what the plan for a state visit says.
Let us not kid ourselves. The UK Government, with their ever-reducing plans to help child refugees, have knowingly and deliberately cooried into this Islamophobic, misogynistic—and dangerously confused, if events in Sweden are anything to go by—leader of the free world, instead of, as one of my constituents said to me, having the balls to stand up and show some kind of moral backbone.
President Trump’s words and actions are horribly destructive for Muslims across the world. They absolutely will foster Islamophobia and racism. We have all heard about the nasty, insidious, creeping racism that has felt able to raise its ugly head—hate crime incidents are up 41% in England and Wales since the Brexit vote—and the state visit would ramp that up further, giving all those who feel the need to persecute other people the comfort they need, especially as they may now feel that it is rubber-stamped by this rudderless shambles of a UK Government.
SNP Members have grave concerns about the effect that will have on people living, working and studying in Scotland. Many Muslims are understandably upset and fearful, as are other groups. As the mother of mixed race children, I am upset and fearful for the future in a way I have never been before. This is a time of flux and uncertainty and dark clouds are gathering in many parts of the world. Our job here should be to shine a light and to stand tall. We should take the moral high ground and send a firm message to President Trump that this will never be acceptable and he needs to stop. Instead, the UK Government have rolled over to have their belly tickled. Shame on all involved if they do not rescind the invitation for a state visit now. It will never be in our name.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
There are two ways in which those who agree that the state visit should go ahead can approach the debate. There is the argument along the lines of national self-interest, which is the relatively easy way, and there is the more difficult way: we have got to seek to understand what Mr Trump means to many people in America. I will start with the first. It seems obvious to me that great countries such as our own act in their own national self-interest, and they issue these invitations in order to further that self-interest.
Presumably, when we invited not one but two Presidents of China, we were prepared to overlook the fact that China is effectively a police state, that there is no freedom of expression, of movement or of association, and that there is outright religious persecution. In every single respect it is a state that does not share our values in any shape or form. Presumably, when we issued an invitation all those years ago to President Ceausescu and awarded him a knighthood, we felt it was in our national self-interest so to do. Indeed, we rescinded the award of the knighthood only on the day before he was executed by his own people.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point that there is not a great deal of consistency about the way in which we offer state visits, or for that matter the content of them. It was particularly useful when we offered one to the President of Colombia because that helped progress the peace process in Colombia. Would he not support the idea of the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Procedure Committee doing a proper review of state visits so that we get it right for the future?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a perfectly valid point and I have no objection to it.
To continue the historical analogies, presumably when we invited President Mugabe, a racist homophobe, to have tea with the Queen, we were prepared to overlook his transgressions, and when we invited King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, who presided over the ultimate misogynist state, presumably we felt that Saudi Arabia was an important ally of ours.
We have to be careful about what we wish for. Just think for a moment: if we listened to the petition—I accept that people have signed it in perfectly good faith, and it is a perfectly reasonable point of view—and accepted it and, as a result of the debate, we were to rescind the invitation, that would be catastrophic to our relationship with our closest ally. I will not labour that point, but surely my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has won the argument in the sense that our peace and security and the peace and security of the whole western world depends on our using influence with President Trump. I for one believe that our Prime Minister’s visit was an absolute triumph not only in furthering our national self-interest but by binding President Trump and his new Administration to NATO. We see the effects of that in terms of what the vice-president has been saying only this week. There is no doubt in my mind that it is in our national self-interest to accord respect and honour to our closest and greatest ally. Whether we like it or not, this man is the duly democratically elected leader of the free world.
To me, that is the easy argument to make, but I feel I have to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) in making what is probably a much more difficult and controversial argument. We had a debate a year ago on Mr Trump when speaker after speaker —even on the Conservative side—condemned him, saying he was outrageous. I was the only one who tried to understand the phenomenon and why people were supporting and voting for him. I made the point then, and will make it now, that it is unwise of us to try to transfer our own views and prejudices to the other side of the Atlantic. For instance, most people here think that I am on the far right of the political spectrum in this House, but here I am, a person who warmly supports gun control, who opposed the Iraq war and who relies entirely on the NHS. All of those things would make me an abomination in large parts of the Republican party. It is very foolish for us to lecture our conservative colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic about what is the right or improper nature of conservativism.
Mr Trump is not my sort of conservative—I have nothing in common with him—but let us look at some of his comments and the charge of misogyny. Of course, what he was reported as saying in a private conversation was horrible and ridiculous—I hope none of us would make those comments—but which one of us has not made some ridiculous sexual comment at some time in our past? [Hon. Members: “Me!”] Well, in private. Let he is without sin cast the first stone. He has apologised. That is not really a reason to withdraw an invitation.
Sir Edward Leigh
I had better give way because someone is casting an aspersion.
Hannah Bardell
I cast no aspersions, but is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the comments made in public by Trump on a number of issues, including marriage equality for LGBT people, and his comments on sexual abuse and attacking women, which were made in private, recorded and then broadcast, are a legitimate perspective? Does he stand there and think it is acceptable to say in the Chamber and this House that that kind of position is acceptable?
Sir Edward Leigh
I said precisely the opposite. As far as I know, I have never spoken like that and no friends of mine have ever spoken like that. I completely deplore it and find it ridiculous to speak like that in private. All I am saying is that most of us would be rather embarrassed if everything that we had ever said in private in our past was—
Sir Edward Leigh
I have given way twice, so I think I had better get on now. I knew this would be a difficult argument. It is easy to dodge it, but I think it is only fair to make it.
As regards the argument of racism, I do not believe there is any proof that the travel ban is racist. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world and there is no question of a travel ban on Indonesia. All the travel ban countries are riven by civil war and the travel ban builds on work done by President Obama, so to accuse the new President of the United States of racism, misogyny and all the rest is overstating it.
I knew that these arguments would be difficult to make, but the fact is that 61 million American people voted for Mr Trump and support him, like it or not. Even if he fills people with rage, the fact is that he is there. He is the duly elected President of the United States. Our interests rely absolutely on trying to influence the man, and on bringing him over here to tie him to our point of view. He would never be elected in this country—his views would have no traction. He would never become the leader of the Conservative party in this country. None of us would campaign along the lines he has campaigned on. We all disagree fundamentally with many things he has said, but he is there. He is elected. We have to work with him. That is why it would be a disaster if the invitation were rescinded.
[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It will not come as a surprise to the House that I shall speak against a state visit for Donald Trump. Last night, discussing the debate, I began to think about how I am his worst nightmare—the daughter of a political asylum seeker, raised in a Muslim household and, perhaps worst of all, a woman with strong opinions. Somehow I do not think I will be on his Christmas card list this year. Joking aside, however, I recognise that he has been elected in the United States. The debate comes off the back of an independent election, but it is about the nature of our Government’s response to Donald Trump and whether we give a royal welcome to our country to an individual who has already made thousands of British people, including Members of the House, question whether they are still welcome in America.
I have two main reasons for speaking against granting a state visit to Donald Trump. First, what has he said and done—what has he said to the Prime Minister—to warrant a state visit? In my opinion a state visit is something to be granted, not expected. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has already made the point that it is not something that happens because someone has been in their position for seven days. Barack Obama waited two and a half years before he was invited on a state visit. George W. Bush waited three years. Nixon and George Bush Senior were never given a state visit. My question is what Donald Trump has done. In my opinion, all he has done since he has been President is insult the press, champion economic protectionism and try to ban Muslims from entering the United States. Are those reasons to grant him a state visit to our country?
Secondly, a state visit is meant to be a celebratory event for people. However, millions of people have signed a petition to say they do not want Donald Trump to be given a state visit. Thousands have marched along Whitehall, in addition to the people across the country who say they would not welcome it. If we listen carefully we can hear the thousands of people outside the House right now, saying they do not want Donald Trump to come to this country on a royal state visit. We have a duty to listen to those people and give them a voice. If people from the Trump Administration are listening, I would say to them that that is not fake news. The people protesting outside are not alternative facts. The protests are real ones, by British people who do not want to give him a royal visit.
I disagree with the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Sir Simon Burns), who said that it is not a question of timing. For me, it is. In the post-Brexit era there are deep divisions in the community and we have a duty to heal them, not to invite figures like Donald Trump so that he can cause more. At a time when we are trying to figure out whether the immigration status of British nationals is secure in European countries, and whether European nationals who have lived here for years can stay here, we should not invite someone whose immigration measures are so divisive and contradictory. It sends the wrong message to the rest of the world. I ask Conservative hon. Members: how in all good conscience can they really lay out the red carpet for someone who has talked about grabbing women by the pussy? How can they really lay out the red carpet for someone who has insulted the LGBT community, branded Mexicans as rapists and murderers, and insulted Jewish and disabled people? Is that what we want to do?
My final point—I do not have much time—is that future generations will judge us on what we are doing in telling Donald Trump to come here and pay us a visit. British people value respect and tolerance. We have respect for each other. If we do not speak up in the face of injustice and challenge bigotry, we are not serving ourselves. We should not invite him to preach hatred and spread his bigotry, his misogyny and his division.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
This issue has resulted in some extremely passionate speeches on both sides of the argument. Many of my constituents will have signed the petition against the visit, and some will have signed the petition in favour of Mr Trump coming here. I have to say that only about 30 have taken the trouble to email me with their views. It is perfectly legitimate for individuals to sign a petition expressing their personal views, but for a Government to support such a petition—particularly the one in favour of banning the President—would be irresponsible and self-indulgent. The Government must separate the individual from the office holder and act in the British national interest, as many of my colleagues have said.
There is no doubt that our relationship with the United States is essential for both the economy and security. If a state visit will enhance and strengthen our ties, we should support it. There are those who have been critical of the President’s legitimacy. I think the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) spoke about legitimacy, and I recognise the passion and deep feeling with which she spoke. However, the President is legitimate. He was democratically elected by the American people. For us to turn our back on the holder of the office of President is an insult to many millions of people.
Martin Vickers
I think that we should roll out the red carpet if it is in our national interest to do so. I do not think there is any doubt about that, as I have said. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), who is not now in his place, rightly raised comparisons with the Brexit vote. Other candidates in the USA can be compared with those who campaigned for a remain vote in the UK, who did not understand the deeply held views of the British people. Many of the sneering, arrogant, superior comments that we now hear from commentators and, it must be said, some politicians, are an insult to the British people or, in this case, the American people.
The United States is a fully functioning democracy. There are checks and balances in its system, as we have seen from the court decision that went against the President’s immigration ban. The right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) spoke about shared values, and the important shared values that we should unite to strengthen are the democratic process, the judicial system and a free press. Foolishly, last year, as, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned, we had a debate in this Chamber about whether to ban candidate Trump. That was foolish and ill advised, but the present debate is even more so. I repeat that he is the democratically elected President of our most important ally.
Reference has been made to Mr Trump meeting Her Majesty the Queen. Her Majesty has met, as the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) described them, some “unsavoury characters”. In fact, she has met some characters who have actually taken up arms against the Crown, but she has moved on from that because it is in the best interests of our nation.
Mr Trump has said some unusual and irregular things, and some things I would certainly not agree with, but he has not, like many world leaders who Her Majesty and the Government have met over the years, abused human rights. One hopes he is now in a position to actually prevent other leaders around the world from doing so. There is absolutely no doubt, in my judgment, that we should indeed roll out the carpet for the President. We are not rolling out the carpet for Mr Trump; we are rolling out the red carpet for our most valued ally.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is not in his place, because I would like to respond to his arguments, particularly about the post-second world war situation and the need for peace and stability.
As a wee boy, on 4 September 1959, I walked with my mother from Maybole to Culzean castle in Ayrshire. I did so on that autumn day to view the coming of the then President of the United States, President Eisenhower, on his visit to Culzean castle. He was well known to the people of the small town of Maybole, where he had been made a freeman in 1946. He had also been given a suite of rooms in Culzean castle, called the Eisenhower suite, by the people of Scotland.
As many Members will know, Eisenhower was a five-star general who served as the supreme commander of the allied expeditionary force in Europe. Post-world war two, he became the first ever supreme commander of NATO. He was then President of the United States from 1953 to 1961—a time when the cold war gripped people with the fear that we faced the possibility of a third world war. He famously called Culzean castle his second White House, given that he visited it not only in the positions that he held but with his family on many occasions during his life.
However, that great American, who served us so well in the second world war as a supreme commander, who was the first commander of NATO and who became probably the greatest post-second world war Republican President, was only once—in 1959— allowed an informal visit to the United Kingdom. He was never afforded a state reception or the right to address Parliament, and he and the American people never complained once. He was able to engage informally. All we are asking is, if an informal visit was sufficient for that great President, who contributed so much to our society and to the defeat of fascism, why on earth are we rolling out the red carpet for a man who has only spread division and international instability?
The first foreign leader to be invited to address this Parliament was the President of France, on 23 March 1939, so it was not as if there was no precedent of having people coming on state visits or speaking to Parliament. We know that only two American Presidents in history have been afforded both a state visit and an invitation to address Parliament: Reagan and Obama. Bill Clinton was invited to address Parliament but did not receive a state visit, and George W. Bush received a state visit but was not invited to address Parliament.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, most American Presidents who have come to this country have come on informal visits; it is unusual for us to accord a state visit or the ability to address Parliament to American Presidents. If we do so for this President, who has created such international instability and such social division, we should think very carefully about what makes him deserving of a state visit. I would say that nothing does. This is a grubby and despicable manoeuvre by the Prime Minister.
Many years ago, the Scottish poet, Hugh MacDiarmid, said that, when he died, he wanted there to be a two-minute pandemonium. The only good thing I can see coming out of President Trump’s state visit is the opportunity for the citizens and parliamentarians of the nations of the United Kingdom to have a two-minute pandemonium in opposition.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I will keep my remarks brief. I am disappointed that some hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the petition to ban President Trump have said that anyone who supports the visit is an apologist for his views. That is absolutely not the case. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) was exactly right when he spoke of the need for calm, reflective diplomacy. I do not think megaphone diplomacy is ever to be advocated; we are best served by conducting our relationship with the United States in a positive manner.
The Government’s response to both petitions said that the visit was offered
“on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen”.
I cannot think that the Queen is completely unaware of what is being offered in her name. I do not actually have any idea of what Her Majesty thinks—that is way above my pay grade—but that is the whole point: we are not aware of what Her Majesty thinks. As convention decrees, she does not pronounce her views. However, I cannot think that Her Majesty will be embarrassed. As always, she will be a beacon of soft diplomacy by greeting the visitors to this country who are accorded the right of a visit in her name.
I made a list of hon. Members who are against the visit, including the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I find it quite surprising that they argue that seven days was a short term in which to make the invitation. I hope colleagues will indulge me in saying that it is like the old story that someone is arguing with a prostitute about the price, and when he offers her tuppence, she says, “What do you take me for?”, and he says, “I think we know”. That is now a negotiating strategy. [Interruption.] Oh, let us have some fake outrage now; I think everybody has heard that comment before. I am standing here as a woman being shouted down by women, isn’t that right?
If not during those seven days, at what time would Opposition Members have considered it appropriate to extend the invitation? What we are actually talking about is a ban. From everything that has been said, there would seem to be no point that would be acceptable to the hon. Members who have spoken in favour of the petition to ban President Trump. I have listened courteously to all hon. Members who have spoken; I have sat here and not intervened because I am mindful of time, so I would appreciate not being barracked by Opposition Members.
My point is that, if we agree that the diplomacy to be extended between ourselves and the United States of America is within the gift of the Prime Minister and, I presume, with the permission of Her Majesty, we know that it will be done in the best possible manner to further our relationship with our closest ally. I am amazed that Opposition Members think that using a stick to poke and stir up the bees’ nest is the best way forward. The calm, reflective measures that were talked earlier about are exactly what we need.
Any of us who have particular concerns about some of President Trump’s pronouncements are quite right to have them; I object completely to some of the things that have been said. However, our Government have extended an invitation, in the name of Her Majesty, for someone to come to our country as a welcomed ally and as a President with whom we shall hopefully have a good and purposeful relationship.
We are now hearing comments about the man being protozoan. We have no respect for leaders of other countries if we talk about them in that manner. If we have concerns about his policies, we can by all means criticise them and raise those concerns, but until that point—until we turn our back on the President of the United States of America—I think it is quite appropriate that we offer a state visit. Our Prime Minister, through her diplomatic efforts, has secured a future for NATO and a future direction for this country that binds us together as allies.
Mr Nigel Evans
Does my hon. Friend get the impression that a number of people simply cannot come to terms with the fact that 61 million-plus people voted for the President of the United States, Donald Trump, because they felt left behind? There is an inability among people in this House to come to terms with democracy. That is why Tony Blair was visiting TV and radio stations the other day, trying to reverse the democratic decision of the British people—it is an inability to understand what democracy is all about.
Mrs Main
My hon. Friend is right. There have been plenty of comments here, but nearly 63 million people, I am reliably informed, voted for President Trump. That is their democratic decision. They are the people who have evaluated whether they like the man and whether they think he will take the country forwards. Many of them were aware of some of his comments in the past, and they voted for him because of the lines he has taken. It is not for us to criticise them and try to redress the matter now. I thought it was ridiculous when we debated somehow standing against his candidacy. He is the President, and we must move on.
If we have criticisms and concerns, the most important thing is that they are expressed behind closed doors. These public pronouncements seem completely counterintuitive to what we need to be doing for the future of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) got it exactly right: the easy thing to do is to stand in this Chamber and make vast speeches about how some of President Trump’s comments have been totally reprehensible. They have been, but how much farther does that get us? How much farther does that get our country in trade deals and negotiations, and perhaps when it comes to our reliance on America at some point in the future when it needs to come to our aid? I suspect this is a very dangerous route to go down.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I want to start by talking about the number of people who have signed this petition, because it is truly staggering. In my constituency, the figure is almost 9,000—that is almost one in every 10 residents of Cambridge. We have heard talk about democracy. I have to say that democracy does not equal majoritarianism, and it is very important to remember that.
I want to say a little bit about why people in cities such as Cambridge feel so passionately about this issue, which goes to the very heart and kernel of people’s beliefs about themselves. We have heard about the people who have been left behind, but there is another place that values tolerance, education, understanding and learning. That is the kind of city Cambridge is, and there are other cities around the country just like that. For many people, this is more than just a calculation of national interest; it is about who we are and about our values, and it really matters.
I will quote one or two of my constituents who have not only signed the petition but written to me. One said:
“I am appalled at the recent travel ban imposed by President Trump which denigrates Western values in such a public and devastating way.”
We have heard the argument about the fact that we have had other unsavoury leaders here in the past. Of course, there are always trade-offs. When we invite people here, we are trying to do something positive: we are trying to find common ground. The goal is always to widen dialogue. However, the United States is so much better than President Trump—that is the key to this.
We have a shared history. We go back historically. There has always been a tension between the old world and the new world. It has been a creative, cultural tension over many years. The fact that we are such good friends and have such shared values ought to mean we are the ones who can candidly say to the many, many people in America who are looking for something better that in a troubled time—and it is a troubled time—we stand with them. Frankly, as we speak, the Trump presidency is disintegrating. There has been a near meltdown in the White House over the past month or two, and we should not be coming along to help prop it up.
We have heard about the Prime Minister’s rush to go and meet President Trump. We all understand why that was and can see the point of that, post-Brexit. However, one of my constituents describes that as an
“obsequious and inappropriate offer of cordiality.”
Those words may not be chosen in every constituency, but it sums up what a lot of people feel in Cambridge. My view is that turning to such an unstable regime is a big risk that may not look so bright in the months ahead. Is that really the patriotic option, in our national self-interest? Are we really sure this is the person we should put our trust in? We used to understand that by sharing sovereignty with others, we were all stronger. We are now in a new world where it is everyone for themselves. America is a big, powerful country—if it is America first, where does that leave us exactly? We should think clearly about that. Another constituent says that our relationship with the US is
“diminished by subordinating our long-held values for our short-term trading interests. The ‘special relationship’ is only as special as the values which underpin it.”
I understand the difficulty that the Prime Minister has got herself into, but there are many ways out of it. Just the revelations about Trump’s first choice for national security adviser and his potential link with the Russians should surely be more than enough reason for us to think that enough is enough. If this is about UK national security and interests, I say think again.
Let me conclude by saying that in my view, Mr Trump is a disgusting, immoral man. He represents the very opposite of the values we hold and should not be welcome here. We are a tolerant country, but we cannot allow that tolerance to be abused. We do not welcome bigots and we do not stand aside when we see intolerance, ignorance and hatred on the march—we respond, and that response should be for our Government to withdraw the invitation.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am a teacher by profession. One of the most important things that a teacher can give to their pupils is a view of tolerance, respect and understanding that the world is made up of a whole variety of different people who are no better or worse than one another.
I became concerned when I heard comments such as
“Grab them by the pussy”.
I was even more concerned when those comments were dangerously dismissed as locker room talk. Unlike the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I do not know any men who think like that, have those thoughts or even discuss them in the locker room—but then again, I move in circles different from him. When Donald Trump was elected, I tweeted:
“Xenophobic, racist, sectarian and sexist rhetoric has just been legitimised. We should all be very afraid.”
Fox News reported that our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, had urged Trump to reach out to those who felt marginalised—a view I think we all agree with.
Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)
I appreciate that my hon. Friend is a trained teacher, but could I ask her to project a little more, over the noise of the many, many people who are protesting outside against Trump?
Carol Monaghan
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Of course, many of us may join those people after this debate. [Interruption.] No, I will not give way.
Fox News also quoted my tweet, which opened the floodgates. I have a whole pile of comments. I will not treat Members to the whole selection, but I will read a couple of brief ones. They include:
“Mind your damn business and stay the hell out of our politics,”
“The silent majority has spoken. We do not want to end up like your piss poor country,”
and
“We kicked your ass once. We can do it again if you give us a reason.”
Here is another one:
“Keep your vulgar comments on your side of the pond. We should have let Germany run over you in the 40s.”
My personal favourite was from the geographically challenged Randy Krone from Dallas, who tweeted:
“Ignorant, thick, foolish is the order of the day with Carol Monaghan. Australia should be very afraid.”
Regardless of why people voted the way they did, a Pandora’s box of hate has been opened and the right wing has been emboldened, both in the United States and across Europe, and we should all be worried about that. Dark rhetoric that should never be uttered is now being freely expressed. What do teachers now tell their classes? How do they teach them tolerance and respect when Trump has been not only elected, but offered a state visit? How can teachers defend tolerance? How can they stand up to their pupils? How can they tackle bullying, xenophobia and homophobia in schools when we have rolled out the red carpet to him? I have heard a number of people saying that that is in the national interest. I will tell them what is in the national interest: showing an example to our young people and telling them that those views are not to be accepted or tolerated. We should be defending those who have moderate views and moderate positions.
I stand here in support of the 3,554 of my constituents who have signed the petition and the many others who emailed me, urging me to speak out against this state visit.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend and I share a constituency boundary, and 5,259 of my constituents have signed the petition against the state visit, compared with the 168 who signed the petition in favour. Given the vast level of public interest in this petition, the interest that we can hear outside and the interest that is demonstrated by the number of hon. Members wanting to contribute this evening, does my hon. Friend agree that the Petitions Committee and the Procedure Committee need to look at ways of extending the time and perhaps even the space that is available for this kind of debate in the future?
Carol Monaghan
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As soon as we arrived for the debate this afternoon I wondered why it was not taking place in the main Chamber. So many hon. Members obviously want to speak, and I am sure that the main Chamber is much less busy than this one this evening.
To conclude, I agree with the overwhelming view of my constituents that this state visit should not go ahead, in the national interest.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
Order. The next speaker is Mr Alistair Carmichael. Could we now cut speeches down to four minutes?
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the Petitions Committee on bringing it to us this afternoon and, in particular, I congratulate all those who set up and signed the petitions. For them to see the direct influence of that political activism on the business of this House has to be a good and positive development.
The argument advanced by those who support the extension of an invitation of this sort to President Trump, which was most thoughtfully expressed by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), is that essentially this is the spending of a measure of political capital, on which there will be a return. As the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee put it, the Prime Minister won an important reaffirmation of the special relationship. I have to say to all those who have advanced that argument: where is the evidence that that is in fact the case? I ask that because having offered President Trump a state visit, and the offer having been accepted, we have since seen a very different range of views coming from him that are not particularly helpful, particularly in relation to America’s future engagement through NATO—the relationship with Russia, for example.
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. Does he recall another British Prime Minister, one who did many good things but, I think, was deeply naive about the ability he thought he had to influence an American President, and where that led us?
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, and I had cause to reflect this weekend on that former Prime Minister.
My other concern is that we may have spent that capital in this way and it may or may not ultimately be effective, but this is week one of a four-year term. Having offered a state visit this time, what will we offer the next time we want to get a favourable response?
Mr Carmichael
Will it be the Crown jewels? Who knows? Just about anything is possible these days.
Essentially, what we are talking about is a question of judgment, and in my view, the Prime Minister, in the exercise of her judgment, got it catastrophically wrong, not just in offering a state visit but, as others have observed, in doing so seven days after President Trump’s inauguration. That was not something that she just decided to do on the spur of the moment. We all know the Prime Minister well enough to know that it was not something she would have blurted out to fill an awkward pause in the conversation, so the question is: what was the motivation? My suspicion is that she was perhaps a little bit spooked by seeing the pictures of Nigel Farage at Trump Tower following the election in November, or it may be—as the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) suggested—that she was pursuing questions of trade deals post Brexit. Whatever the motivation, however, it has left us looking desperate and craven and rushing to embrace a presidency when the rest of the world is rushing away from it.
It is also worth remembering some of the things that that presidency involves and, in particular—this is my personal concern—President Trump’s determination or avowed intention to resurrect the use of torture.
Mr Carmichael
I am sorry, but I am down to four minutes and I do not have any more injury time, as it is called.
Waterboarding or something
“a hell of a lot worse”
was the expression. When I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he had raised that with President Trump, he said that he did not discuss operational matters. Whether we share our intelligence with a country that condones the use of torture is not an operational matter. That is a matter of policy for every other country in the world and it should be a matter of policy for the United States of America as well.
I have no issue with the Prime Minister seeking to influence the President of the United States, but she should do it in a way that engages the relationship that we have enjoyed in the past; she should be seeking to build on that. If, and only if, she is successful in that should an offer such as the one that she has made be extended. That presumes, of course, that President Trump will be influenced. I see little evidence to support that contention. Even those few benign influences that are around him do not seem able to do that.
I start from the position of somebody who values the special relationship, but I understand that that special relationship is not between a Government and an Administration; it is between our two peoples. It is our shared history and our shared values that make it special and enduring, and that is what the Prime Minister risks doing severe damage to today.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I would hope that this debate—not just the debate in Westminster Hall, but the wider debate—would be conducted in a calm and rational fashion, but the past hour and 40 minutes indicate that that may indeed be a hope rather than an expectation. None the less, this matter has been debated widely outside the House, and there are many outside who do not share my view. My view is that Candidate Trump and Mr Trump made some deplorable and vile comments, which are indefensible —they cannot be defended morally, politically or in any other way—but he is the democratically elected President of the United States of America. As far as I am aware, 62.9 million people voted for the now President Trump, and the electoral college system delivered the presidency to him.
In the few minutes that I have, I wish to labour the following point. Eight years ago we had the election of President Barack Obama. We were told at the time that here was a new man. Here was a man whose slogan was “Yes, we can”, who would introduce a radical wave of liberal ideas that would bring the United States of America well into the 21st century and would liberate and emancipate that nation state, with the great liberty that it has had for more than 200 years. According to some, more than 60 million Americans, after having eight years of Obama’s presidency, elected a bigoted, misogynistic, racist, paranoid xenophobe and Islamophobe. How did they do that after eight years of the great liberal being in charge of the United States of America? How can otherwise rational, peaceful democrats vote for such a xenophobe?
That question is in part what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) alluded to. Across the free world there is an isolation—not the isolationism of President Trump, but an isolation of peoples. Whether in the United Kingdom or the USA, and as we will probably see in the Netherlands, France and Germany, there is a rising up of people who have had enough of the establishment because they blame the establishment for their plight. It does not do for people to patronise them and say, “We will take account of your fears and concerns. You have perceptions—they are not really accurate, but we understand that they are your perceptions.” That will not wash. It did not wash in America, it did not wash with the Brexit vote and we will wait and see whether it washes in much of continental Europe. It is time the establishment—the bubble—whether in Westminster, Brussels or Washington woke up to the reality that people want to see and hear their Government and elected representatives representing them rather than simply going through the motions of establishing further bubbles and retreating into their bubble even more.
I do not endorse some of the things President Trump has said, but he has been invited. We should ensure that that invite goes ahead and we should also say to Mr Trump, “Some of the things you have said are unacceptable. If you think that the pendulum has swung too far to the left, Mr Trump, please be sure that you do not allow it to swing too far to the right.”
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the Petitions Committee on holding this debate. My constituency is the most diverse in Europe, and I am very proud of that. Almost everybody there has something to say about Trump and America.
The UK has, and always has had, a close working relationship with the United States, and it is important to continue that special relationship, but it comes with responsibilities. Today we speak in our Parliament, which is older than the United States itself, and we have a responsibility—as the elder, if you like—to guide that special relationship. It is often said that when America sneezes, the UK catches a cold. Well, right now America has a pretty nasty virus, and it is important that that virus does not spread. We have to stop the spread of that virus, because the closeness of our special relationship and the open wound we have, which was created by Brexit, leaves us quite vulnerable. We need to stop this contagion becoming an epidemic that leads to a pandemic from which the free world may never recover.
There is a lot of talk about the negotiations the Prime Minister delivered to continue our close working relationship. I say that we cannot sell our souls and what we believe in in order to sell our goods and services. That price is way too high to pay. The antidote to the virus is building bridges, not walls. It is listening to the thousands of people who have spoken, who have signed the petition and who are outside Parliament right now—we can hear them cheering and chanting. We hear people who have come out to march. People who have never marched before are outside Parliament right now because they believe in something. They believe in hope, not hate.
Edmund Burke said,
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
I am sure that he wanted to mention women in his speech and his wise statement. It was women who were the first to mobilise against Trump’s extremism; hundreds of thousands took to the streets, and they were rightly joined by men, boys, girls, those who are gay, straight, people of all religions and those of none. It is time that the United Kingdom united its voice against racism, bigotry, misogyny, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and all the tools of division that have given Trump the White House. People have said today, “He is not racist, because—”. To me, that is the same as saying, “How can someone be a murderer?” It is the same way as a murderer can be a murderer and still have friends who are alive. It does not matter—he is still a racist and misogynistic.
We affect each other. I think Martin Luther King put it well. He said:
“I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be… this is the interrelated structure of reality.”
We are bound together in a “single garment of destiny” and we need each other in order to move forward. There is no way around it; we have to work with other people.
President Trump is the President. He can come and visit, but not on a state visit—that is taking it a little step too far. Trump’s message is not about togetherness; it is all about building walls and imposing bans. It is not about the truth; when he speaks and someone criticises or questions what he has said, he cries that it is fake news. There is a real issue and a problem that we have to address.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
Order. We have reached 6.45 pm, so we must move on to Liam Byrne.
Dawn Butler
I will conclude to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) time to speak. I just want to say that the whole world is watching the decision that we make in Parliament, and we cannot be on the wrong side of history.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.
I want to start in the same place as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), which is as someone who loves America very dearly. I am proud to be one of the Fulbright scholars in this place. I spent two happy years living in America. I criss-crossed the country in that time, and it was there where I learnt about America’s warmth, beauty, enterprise, energy, creativity, generosity and resolution in the face of adversity. Those are all the values we expect a President of the United States to epitomise. Those were the values of President Washington, whose birthday we mark today on Presidents’ day. It was once said that President Washington could not tell a lie; this President appears to find it difficult telling the truth.
What we need right now, in this world of division and discord, is a shared defence of the values we have in common. We need a shared stand against disunity, a shared stand against intolerance and a shared stand against hatred. That is what we should be celebrating with a presidential state visit to the United Kingdom and that, I am afraid, is what we are not going to get. My fear is that this visit will not be a showcase for those shared values. Actually, it will be a showcase for the divisions between us. We have to ask ourselves what will greet President Trump when he gets here. I argue that, frankly, we are going to get the kind of protest that we see outside now. In fact, what will greet the President will make the protest outside look like a tea party. What we hope to be a special relationship will emerge as a strained relationship.
If I thought, similar to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), that we could take the President for a non-alcoholic pint, sit him down for a cup of tea or take him out for a curry in the balti triangle of Birmingham, and send him away a better man, I would be all for rolling out the red carpet. But what the President has shown us by his conduct is that he is not a man who treasures two-way conversations; he is a man who treasures one-way conversations, ideally composed of 140 characters.
Some hon. Members have said that we have entertained all sorts. That is true. Diplomacy is not a business in which we can conduct conversations only with our friends. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) said, however, we hold America to a higher standard because it is our friend. Our shared values were pioneered in this Parliament in the years before the civil war. We gave those shared values to the pilgrim fathers, who took them and wrote the Mayflower compact, which became the American constitution. Those are values that we should be celebrating.
Liam Byrne
I will not give way, because time is now very short.
My fear is that nothing would be left unsaid in this visit. That is a problem, because sometimes in diplomacy things are better left unsaid. In this visit we would hear the sirens and the protests, and my fear is that in parts of America that would be misinterpreted not as antipathy to Donald Trump but as antipathy to America. That is not something we want if we are to strengthen and reinforce the American special relationship.
The truth is that the history of British diplomacy and politics is littered with British Prime Ministers who overestimated their influence on American Presidents. I fear that our Prime Minister is about to add her name to that cast list. The state visit will be a mistake, but it is hard to withdraw the offer now. Frankly, our best hope is to keep it short, because my fear is that it will not be sweet.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Turner.
I ask the Members who are still here this evening to close their eyes and think about something for a minute: if we were talking about any other person—any other leader—in the world, wherever they might come from, would we be standing in such astute defence of him? I think perhaps not, and we should all think about what that says about us. Does it say that it does not matter what the President of the United States says, because he is a rich white man? I fear that that is exactly what it says.
Some have talked of others who have been invited on state visits to this country. I ask hon. Members who raised that issue this: which other head of state who has been invited on a state visit has posed a threat to our national security and has insulted a member of the royal family? I think the answer to that is none.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I will not, because it would not be fair to everybody else.
The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) spoke of the path of righteousness—a very noble path indeed—but I fear that we have been here before. Many of us in the Chamber today were at the previous debate, including the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who spoke about inviting President Trump over—he was not then even the candidate for the Republican party—to see how we live in this country and to see our tolerant society, of which we are extremely proud. If anyone really thinks that would make much of a difference, I would comment on their innocence in this matter.
A comment was made about Trump being “refreshing”. I can understand why Government Members find it refreshing when an elected leader actually does what they said they were going to do during their election campaign—they are certainly unfamiliar with that concept—but I find the use of the word “refreshing” in this case rather abhorrent.
That takes me on to the comment made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). He asked, “Which one of us hasn’t made a ridiculous sexual comment in the past?” It is unacceptable that he thinks that is the right point to bring to this forum. It is never, ever okay to make comments of a sexual nature to anybody. I know I speak for all the women in this House—if not some of the men too—when I say that we have had enough of it and we are certainly not going to put up with any more of it.
State visits have been an honour bestowed by our monarchy on the heads of states of other nations. This debate is not about how the USA voted—of course it is not. We know there were democratic elections, although President Trump has cast aspersions upon whether some of the people who voted had the right to do so. What this debate is about is who we are as a country made up of four nations. I have to say that I think the voices we can hear outside are perhaps more demonstrative of who we are as a country of many nations than some of the voices we have heard in here today.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. We respect the right of the Americans to decide their President, but that is not what this debate is about; it is about our values, our constituents and what the situation means to us. If this Parliament is an embodiment of our country’s values, to paraphrase Jane Austen, are the shades of Parliament to be thus polluted?
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I agree very much with my hon. Friend. There were sighs from Members at the back of the Chamber because I allowed an intervention from her, but I did so because she has not yet spoken in the debate, and it is important that everybody’s voice is heard, not just those of the majority made up by men.
Mr Nigel Evans
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) has not spoken either.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
Well, I will take his intervention then. I did not realise.
Nigel Adams
I am extremely grateful. The hon. Lady is sending a powerful message, but I want to take her back to her points about other heads of states who have come, because I am a bit confused. Many Members have mentioned some rather unsavoury figures who have been afforded state visits. Not so long ago we rolled out the red carpet for the Emir of Kuwait, which is a place where, if someone is gay, there is a pretty good chance they will be slung in prison. I wonder whether the hon. Lady thinks we are perhaps traipsing into an area of double standards.
Ms Ahmed-Sheikh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—I see that I do not get any extra speaking time for taking it. I believe that when it is in our national interest, the Governments of Scotland and the UK should seek to work constructively with Governments and world leaders with whom we agree and disagree. However, I refer him to the points I made about what is in the interests of our national security and the insults that have been made to the royal family, which I will come to.
We must demonstrate leadership. The point of all that we do is to encourage others who visit this country to raise their game, but the current President of the United States is not someone who is demonstrating positive leadership on the world stage, someone who would benefit from a first-hand examination of democracy, or someone who is acting in a way that is in our national interest.
Up to now, Presidents of the United States have been almost universally considered to be leaders of the free world. There have been some good and some not-so-good Presidents, but although we may agree with some of their philosophies or policies, each has been committed to upholding the constitution of the United States and promoting and protecting freedom and justice across the world. I consider myself a friend of the United States and like many Scots, I am pleased about our countries’ strong links. As an alumna of the US State Department’s international visitor leadership programme, I have seen at first hand the professionalism and care with which US Administrations deal with their friends from across the world when they visit, but President Trump does not follow in the footsteps of the giants of American history. His actions to date have not upheld US values and those of the US constitution, but have undermined them to every extent.
It is not just by inviting him here on a state visit that we are setting aside his outrageous and deplorable personal conduct. As we have heard, this is a man who jokes about grabbing women “by the pussy”. This is a man who—[Interruption.] I hear groans from Members at the back of the Chamber, but it is just not on. This is a man who said of the Duchess of Cambridge in 2012:
“Who wouldn’t take Kate’s picture and make lots of money if she does the nude sunbathing thing. Come on Kate!”
How humiliating it would be for any family to welcome somebody like that in their home, and we are asking that the royal family do precisely that.
I object to this proposed state visit not just because of President Trump’s vile behaviour, but because of his actions as President. He signed illegal and unconstitutional Executive orders that contravened the USA’s obligations under the Geneva convention. His subsequent public statements have systematically undermined the independence of the judiciary. He set the groundwork for rolling back the Voting Rights Act and placing new restrictions on Americans’ rights to vote by falsely claiming that voting fraud is taking place on a massive scale, without a single shred of evidence to substantiate it. He has undermined the free press. He has called any poll that shows the US public at odds with his policy position “fake news”—in fact, he has now extended that to “very fake news”. He speaks of the press being the enemy of the American people and has publicly endorsed the use of war crimes by US forces abroad. He would deliberately target innocent civilians, in direct contravention of international law. His actions are morally and legally wrong and in conflict with our international interests.
But do not just take my word for it. Following the issue of the Executive order banning entry to the US by those born in a number of predominantly Muslim countries, the Home Secretary said during questioning that
“the sources of terrorism are not to be found in the sources where the president is necessarily looking for them.”
Trump is not combating terrorism; he is bolstering it. He is adopting a warped world view that will in itself give aid to terrorists. He says that it is Islam against the west, and that feeds into the narrative of Daesh, which says that it is the west against Islam. What a dangerous path to take us down.
As we saw during last week’s press conference—it could only be described as extraordinary—which achieved its main aim of deflecting immediate attention from the mounting evidence of links with Putin’s Russia, President Trump is either a complete idiot who believes everything he reads on the internet, or an enormous liar. I do not think he is actually an idiot; he has been phenomenally successful in achieving his goals. He has a plan and a means to carry it out.
I want to join my friends in the US in defending their constitution. Have we spared that a thought? This is about not just Government-to-Government action, but the people of the United States of America who have protested against the actions of their President. Men, women and children alike stood beside refugees when the Muslim ban was put in place. Who is going to speak for them? I think we should.
If we fete and accommodate Trump on an official visit, lending him our cloak of respectability, and hope that that acquiescence will change his dangerous policies or vile behaviour, we will carrying on the tradition of the spectacularly unsuccessful tactics used by Tory MPs in this Chamber who attended the debate a year ago and dismissed him as a “wazzock”—I think that was the word that was used. Those who chose to ridicule him then must be wondering why they did. We have now heard from the Prime Minister, as we have heard so often, that we are supposed to be demonstrating global leadership. In our actions, we have demonstrated only that we have failed in our duty to do so. We are following in Trump’s footsteps, and I do not intend to go in that direction.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, not least because my constituency has the third highest number of signatories to the petition. It is a happy coincidence that I have the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition.
The petition is approaching the 2 million-signature mark, and we know from the hundreds of letters that we have received in our offices and the thousands of people who joined my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and me at the protests earlier this month that public concern is immense, not only about the President’s behaviour and confrontational approach but about the position that our Government have taken in relation to his visit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) gave some excellent examples in his contribution, and many Members have made passionate speeches. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, the United States is one of our closest allies and strongest trading partners, although I hasten to add that they were not our only partner in the world wars—there were other important partners among the Commonwealth countries and we must not forget our history. However, as he pointed out, what is important is the relationship. It was great to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) speak about his experience of studying in the US. There is nothing like an experience at university to hammer home that sense of friendship.
Hannah Bardell
On that point, does the hon. Lady agree with the staff who work at places such as the US State Department, consulates and embassies? I spent 18 months working for the American consulate in Edinburgh, and I was with staff there on the evening of the election. They were devastated at the thought that Trump had been elected President. They are now at the forefront, having to face down and work with the public while he makes abhorrent statements.
Catherine West
I did feel a sense of sympathy for the woman who was unceremoniously sacked following the imposition of the ban. Having run a local authority, I know how heated elected members can get. They run into the Chamber or the White House and suddenly decide, “This is the policy of the day,” and the poor old staff have to respond and think up how that policy can actually come into effect. That is why certain states have questioned the legal basis for the famous so-called Muslim ban.
I will comment briefly on the issues that we should be talking about: tackling international crime and terrorism, working together to address the mass movement of people around the globe and reinforcing international policies to combat climate change. Sadly, instead, we are falling into the trap of responding confrontationally to policy pronouncements made via Twitter. I hope we can right the ship again and get back to our more measured way of discussing, debating and taking a little more time to consider the importance of our foreign policy.
One concern outlined in the text of the petition is the potential embarrassment that a state visit might cause to Her Majesty. However, I fear that there is a greater concern. Proceeding with the organisation of a state visit while President Trump remains intent on enforcing his travel ban on nationals from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, and while we are trying to establish a relationship of equals, would send the wrong message to the White House, the international community and the sizable diasporas from those countries resident here in our constituencies. Let us be in no doubt: it is not about the fact that that one group is being singled out, but the fact that any group at all is being singled out. It is that random nature of discrimination that strikes fear into the hearts of many.
We know that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, took the President to task for how the travel ban amounted to a breach of the refugee convention. Many expect the same of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I share the disappointment of the hundreds of thousands of citizens who felt totally let down by the lack of robust leadership, not least because it sends a worrying message that our foreign policy is overwhelming focused on and determined by trade. I would welcome a commitment from the Minister to a more rounded foreign policy that considers not just trade but the importance of human rights and national security.
As many have already mentioned, Presidents of the United States have often made official visits to the UK for summit meetings or other events within months of their inauguration. However, state visits, which require an invitation, have historically taken place after a considerably longer period following inauguration than the one currently proposed for President Trump. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made the important point that a more considered approach might involve asking one of our Committees to review our procedures for state visits. That would also protect a Prime Minister caught on the hop abroad, who could say that Parliament had a system rather than setting out, as ours did, on a rather unfortunate and risky endeavour. She was barely in the air before the ban was suddenly announced, and she was caught in the position of having to respond quickly. Had she been able to say, “We have a due process for deciding these things, and we will let you know,” it would have been much more diplomatic, considered and sensible. I hope the Minister will comment on that suggestion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) pointed out that the Prime Minister announced the invitation just a week after the President took office. A little more thought about the timing would have been much more helpful, and would perhaps have led to less concern among our own citizens, whom we can hear outside this Chamber. My hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) also pointed out eloquently the importance of our values on women’s rights, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) discussed her constituency, where misogynistic and racist messages are clearly unwelcome.
To sum up, we share the concern of many parliamentary colleagues and millions of people across the UK about both the timing and the context of the invitation for a state visit. I am keen to know whether the Minister, who we know is an honourable man, had any personal discussions with the Foreign Secretary or indeed the Prime Minister about the timing of the invitation and the designation of the visit as a state visit, given that the Minister himself believes the rhetoric around the travel ban to be “unacceptably anti-Muslim”. I would also like to give the Minister the opportunity to admit that extending the honour of a state visit in the current context was essentially an error of judgment.
The position is clear: we are opposed to honouring Mr Trump with a state visit so early in his presidency, and certainly while he remains intent on enforcing this discriminatory travel ban. Should it proceed, I am strongly opposed to offering him the honour of addressing both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall so early. I associate myself with the remarks of the Speaker of the House of Commons and the sentiments expressed in early-day motion 890, tabled by my excellent hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
I am immensely proud that Members speaking in this debate have reaffirmed Parliament’s strong role and commitment to the principles of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, as well as our opposition to racism and sexism.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. In response to the two petitions that have triggered this debate, and having listened to the arguments of both sides, I would like to set out the position of Her Majesty’s Government and explain the thinking behind it.
As other hon. Members have said, the state visit is a uniquely British construct. No other country is able to offer one in quite the same way—it is distinctively British. Her Majesty has hosted more than 100 state visits during her reign. All such visits are a rare and prestigious occasion, but they are also our most important diplomatic tool. They enable us to strengthen and influence the international relationships that are of the greatest strategic importance to this country and to other parts of the world.
To answer a question asked by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), recommendations for state visits are made on the advice of the Government through the Royal Visits Committee, not by Parliament. The committee is attended by representatives of the royal household, Downing Street, the Cabinet Office and the Department for International Trade, and is chaired by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Sir Alan Duncan
No, I am going to make progress.
In an uncertain and increasingly dangerous world, the ability to work closely with key countries is critical. Strong alliances and close relationships are a central stabilising pillar for world security. This is an increasingly unstable world, but throughout modern history, the United States and the United Kingdom have worked together side by side to bring peace and security during times of danger and uncertainty. Put simply, a state visit matters so much because diplomacy matters, especially with the world as it is today.
The relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is built around a common language, the common principles of freedom and democracy, and common interests in so many other areas. Our relationship is undoubtedly special. On security, defence, trade, investment and all such issues, the United Kingdom and the United States are and will remain the closest of partners. The United States is the world’s greatest power. In the light of America’s pivotal role, it is entirely right that we should use all the tools at our disposal to build common ground with President Trump.
As the baton of office passed seamlessly and constitutionally from one President to another, we were already well placed to have a productive and meaningful engagement with the new Administration. The British embassy in Washington has been working with key figures in the US Administration over many months. British Secretaries of State have built relationships with their opposite numbers after their congressional confirmation. The Prime Minister’s visit last month was of enormous significance. Only last week, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary met their opposite numbers. On Friday, I met the US Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly.
The Government place our national interest at the heart of our decision making, and the special relationship is a central part of that national interest.
Sir Alan Duncan
No, I am going to keep going.
The special relationship transcends political parties on both sides of the Atlantic, and it is bigger than individual personalities. It is about the security and prosperity of our two nations. The Prime Minister’s meeting with President Trump in Washington last month identified many areas of common interest on which we will work with the new Administration. A state visit will provide the opportunity to further advance those common interests.
Hon. Members have mentioned timing. State visits are not necessarily the sole preserve of long-serving heads of state. In the past, a state visit has been extended to the Presidents of South Africa, France, South Korea, Finland and Poland, among others, each within their first year of office.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister give way?
Sir Alan Duncan
Yes, but just this once, or I will not be able to answer all the points that have been raised.
Seema Malhotra
Does the Minister agree at least that extending a state visit in this way and at this time could effectively be seen as a validation of the views and statements of President Trump? It has been seen in that way by many of my constituents, who feel very concerned about the message that it sends.
Sir Alan Duncan
I understand the hon. Lady’s point exactly. I accept that that is a powerful counter-argument to the case that I am making, but I do not accept that the process of a state visit will be seen as such validation. Let me explain further what I think the value of the state visit will be.
The Government strongly believe that it is a perfectly legitimate decision to use the full impact of an invitation to maximise the diplomatic significance of a state visit at the start of President Trump’s term of office. President Obama and President George W. Bush both visited the UK on a state visit during their first term in office, so it is entirely appropriate that President Trump, too, should be invited in his first term. However, since timing has been raised today, let me be absolutely clear that neither the precise timing nor the content of the proposed visit has yet been agreed.
Mention has been made of the prospect of the President addressing Parliament in some manner or other. In fact, only three guests in the past hundred years have addressed both Houses of Parliament as part of a state visit: President de Gaulle in 1960, President Mandela in 1996 and President Obama in 2011. In any event, as the House is aware, whether that ever happens is solely for the relevant parliamentary authorities to determine.
Alex Salmond
On a point of order, Mr Turner. Tens of thousands of people are demonstrating outside and I am having difficulty in hearing the Minister.
Alex Salmond
But did the Minister just tell us that, if he had been asked, he would have advised a visit—
Alex Salmond
That is not for the Minister to decide. Mr Turner, you are in the Chair, not the Minister.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
Order. That is not eligible as a point of order. Sit down, Mr Salmond. Go on, Minister.
Sir Alan Duncan
Thank you, Mr Turner.
I was talking about the prospect of the President addressing both Houses of Parliament. Comment on whether that might happen has run completely ahead of itself. The simple fact is that no request for any parliamentary event to take place has been received from Washington. The question of addressing a meeting of Parliament has never even been mentioned. Any discussion or judgment of that possibility is therefore purely speculative.
Within the views that have been expressed about the appropriateness of a state visit from the President, there lurks a fundamental principle that Members of this House should consider very seriously—the principle of freedom of speech. President Trump was democratically elected by the American people under their own constitutional system. To have strong views about him is one matter, but to translate a difference of opinion into a demand to ban him is quite another.
Given the understandable questions on certain policy stances that arise on any change of Government, it is prudent for us to work closely alongside the United States as the new Administration chart their course. We have already seen the importance of that engagement: the Prime Minister’s early meeting with the President has elicited key commitments on NATO, which were echoed by the vice-president in Munich on Saturday, and has laid the groundwork to establish a swift post-Brexit free trade agreement. Further constructive engagement will be helped by a state visit.
In February 1917, a century ago, The Spectator published its view on the US and the UK:
“It would be easy to write down a hundred reasons why unclouded friendship and moral co-operation between the United States and Britain are a benefit to the world, and why an interruption of such relations is a detriment to progress and a disease world-wide in its effects.”
Sir Alan Duncan
No; I am in the middle of a quotation. It continues:
“But when we had written down all those reasons we should not have expressed the instinctive sentiments which go below and beyond them all. To our way of feeling, quarrelling and misunderstanding between the British and American peoples are like a thing contrary to Nature. They are so contrary to Nature that the times of misunderstanding have always seemed to us abnormal, and a return to friendship not an achievement of wise diplomacy…but merely a resumption of the normal.”
It is that historic normality that is reflected in this invitation.
This is a special moment for the special relationship. The visit should happen, the visit will happen, and when it does I trust that the United Kingdom will extend a polite and generous welcome to President Donald Trump.
Paul Flynn
This has been an extraordinary event, and the Petitions Committee and the system for petitions have come of age in this debate. How can we have such a situation, where the Minister has given his carefully manicured press/civil servant briefing while outside we have a Greek chorus of—in his case—disapproval? We are expressing the voice of the people and a thunderous voice it has been.
I will make just one more point. I believe that the debate went off the rails when some hon. Members suggested that the petitioners were asking for a ban on President Trump. Not one of the 2 million people is asking for a ban. In the largest petition, people are asking for the visit to be downgraded from a state visit. That is the whole point, namely that by giving this rare accolade of a state visit to President Trump the implication is that we approve of him and his policies. It is fine to have the President here and it is fine to have a visit on business—there is no objection to that—but this marvellous debate that we have had shows that we are reacting to the voice of the people, and to the anger and fear outside. It is a good day for Parliament.
Question put and negatived.
Written Statements
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Local Government Finance
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
I have today laid before the House, the report on Local Government Finance (England) 2017-18, which represents the annual local government finance settlement for local authorities in England.
I would like to thank all colleagues in the House, and council leaders and officials, who contributed to the consultation after the provisional settlement was published before Christmas. Representations from nearly 200 organisations or individuals have been carefully considered before finalising the settlement.
In 2010 we inherited the largest deficit in our peacetime history. As we continue to bring that down, local government, which still accounts for nearly a quarter of public spending despite the savings delivered since 2010, must continue to play its part.
At the same time, local residents rightly continue to expect excellent public services. I commend all councils for how they are getting on with the job. Public satisfaction with local services has been maintained, and councils are engaged in substantial efforts to modernise, transform local services, and reduce waste so that frontline services can be protected.
The 2017-18 local government finance settlement supports councils to continue in that regard, and progresses funding reforms to make councils more self-sufficient.
We remain committed to increasing funding certainty for local government. In total, local government spends more than £120 billion a year and the 2015 Spending Review and 2016-17 settlement delivered a flat-cash settlement for local government, providing four year funding allocations for the first time. The settlement being published today is the second year of the four year offer which was accepted by 97% of councils. To enshrine this commitment to stability in law the Local Government Finance Bill establishes a legal framework for multi-year settlements.
Councils are able to use this increased funding certainty to continue reforming the way they work and become more efficient, both in back-office functions and front line service delivery. Building on the £508 million savings already delivered from shared service arrangements, councils are using improved digital technology, new delivery models and innovative partnerships to deliver savings across local government.
We listened to the unanimous view that we must prioritise spending on adult social care services that councils provide to our elderly and vulnerable citizens. The Spending Review put in place up to £3.5 billion of additional funding for adult social care by 2019-20. Recognising the immediate challenges in the care market facing many councils next year, this settlement repurposes £240 million of money which was previously directed to local authorities via the New Homes Bonus to create a new adult social care support grant next year. It also grants councils extra flexibility to raise the adult social care precept by up to 3% next year and the year after.
These measures make available almost £900 million of additional funding for adult social care over the next two years, bringing the total dedicated funding available for adult social care to £7.6 billion over the four-year settlement period.
But more money is not the only answer. We will bring forward reforms to provide a sustainable market that works for everyone who needs social care. And I welcome the consensus across both sides of the House that every area should move towards the integration of health and social care services by 2020, so that it feels like one service.
Council tax referendum principles
We are committed to keeping council tax down, and will maintain referendum principles to protect hard-working taxpayers from rising bills. Council tax in England has fallen by 9% in real terms from the levels left behind by Labour in 2010, and is expected to be lower in real terms in 2019-20 than it was in 2010-11.
This year, in addition to the further flexibility on the Adult Social Care Precept, we are proposing a core council tax principle of 2% for principal authorities, or £5—whichever is greater—for all shire district councils, and for Police and Crime Commissioners in the lowest quartile.
100% business rates retention
To reduce local government’s dependence on Central Government for funding—long campaigned for by councils—we have announced that by the end of this Parliament, local government will keep 100% of the income raised locally through business rates. Councils will take on new responsibilities to be funded from this additional income—estimated to be around £12.5 billion —as Central Government grants are phased out, and to ensure councils with less business rates do not lose out, there will continue to be redistributions between authorities.
The Local Government Finance Bill, currently before Parliament, provides the legislative framework for these reforms. This will allow us to continue to work closely with interested parties over the coming months on the more detailed aspects of reforms.
A consultation has already been conducted. The Government response to that announced that, in the reformed system, Revenue Support Grant, Rural Services Delivery Grant, the Public Health Grant and the Greater London Authority Transport Grant will be funded through retained business rates. Taken together these account for around half of the additional retained business rates that we estimate will be available to councils. We will continue to engage with local government on the remaining responsibilities to be devolved as part of these reforms but it has already been confirmed that the devolution of Attendance Allowance funding is no longer being considered as part of the Business Rates Retention reforms.
A further consultation has been published seeking views on many of the important aspects of the new system—for example, how growth in business rates can best be rewarded, and how the system can help authorities to manage and share risk. Responses to that consultation are invited by 3 May.
Pilots of these reforms will take place from April 2017 in Liverpool, Greater Manchester, West Midlands, West of England, Cornwall and Greater London. We have also confirmed that we are interested in building on the existing pilot scheme and will be inviting all councils to apply to participate in piloting aspects of 100% Business Rates Retention from April 2018. We will be publishing more information about this process shortly.
Conclusion
Reforms to Local Government Finance, based around 100% business rates retention offer a bold and innovative response to the twin challenges of promoting economic growth and securing more self-sufficient and sustainable local government. They will help determine the role, purpose and means of delivery for local government in the years ahead. The 2017-18 Local Government Finance Settlement provides the financial stability authorities need as they transition towards the reformed system in 2019-20; these longer-term reforms will ensure the councils people rely on for their local services are both sustainable, and more self-sufficient.
The consultation outcome can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/self-sufficient-local-government-100-business-rates-retention.
The further open consultation can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/100-business-rates-retention-further-consultation-on-the-design-of-the-reformed-system
[HCWS482]
Foreign Affairs Council: 6 February 2017
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 6 February. The Foreign Affairs Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. The meeting was held in Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetinqs/fac/2017/02/06/
Agenda items included Libya, Ukraine, Egypt and the Middle East Peace Process. Ms Mogherini briefed Foreign Ministers on the Serbia/Kosovo dialogue and on planning for a conference on Syria to be held in Brussels in the spring.
Libya
The Council discussed the situation in Libya and adopted conclusions. The EU remains committed to an inclusive political settlement under the framework of the Libyan political agreement, with Libyan ownership of the political process and encouragement to all Libyan actors to engage constructively. There can be no military solution to the conflict. The EU reaffirmed its continued support for the UN Support Mission in Libya and welcomed engagement by Libya’s neighbours and regional organisations. Ministers also discussed the need to stem irregular migration along the central Mediterranean route.
Ukraine
Foreign Ministers discussed the recent escalation in violence in eastern Ukraine and the resulting humanitarian situation around the town of Avdiivka. They also discussed how the EU could increase support for the full implementation of the Minsk agreements. Ministers agreed on the need for continued strong support for Ukraine’s reform agenda, which is crucial to strengthen Ukraine’s resilience, and welcomed the progress Ukraine has made on reform to date.
Egypt
Foreign Ministers discussed the economic and political challenges facing Egypt, including the human rights situation, and agreed on the need for closer co-operation on these issues. Ministers also agreed that working more closely with Egypt on regional issues is a priority, given Egypt’s status as a strategic partner in countering terrorism and tackling illegal migration.
MEPP
Foreign Ministers discussed issues relating to the middle east peace process. The Council discussed possible timing for the next EU-Israel Association Council and agreed to revert to the issue. Member states expressed concern about the increase in Israel’s settlement building and the new settlement legislation passed by the Israeli Knesset.
Ministers agreed without discussion a number of measures:
The Council updated the information related to 21 persons and one entity subject to restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Council took note of the annual progress report on the implementation of the European
Union strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The Council took note of the annual report on the implementation of the European Union strategy to combat the illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons and their ammunition —actions in 2015.
The Council approved the conclusion of an agreement aimed at continuing the International Science and Technology Centre (ISTC).
[HCWS481]
Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
I am pleased to announce that I am appointing Max Hill QC as the new Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.
Mr Hill has been a QC for nine years and has extensive experience both defending and prosecuting complex cases involving terrorism, homicide, violent crime, high value fraud and corporate crime. He successfully prosecuted the 21/7 bombers, and he appeared in the inquest into the 7/7 bombings. He also sits as a Recorder at the Old Bailey.
Mr Hill will take up this role from 1 March 2017. He takes over from David Anderson QC, who has served as Independent Reviewer with great distinction since 2011, and to whom I am extremely grateful for the significant contribution he has made.
[HCWS480]
Defined Benefit Occupational Pension Schemes
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)
Today the Government are publishing a Green Paper “Security and Sustainability in Defined Benefit Pension Schemes”. This paper also forms part of the Government response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee report into defined benefit pension schemes. I would like to thank the Committee for its report.
Defined benefit schemes are an important pillar of the UK economy and our pensions system. In order to generate the funds needed to pay the pensions of retired workers, around £1.5 trillion is invested by nearly 6,000 schemes. The Government are committed to a system that works for employers, schemes and the 11 million people who are in a defined benefit scheme.
While the Government do not believe that there is any systemic issues within the sector, it is clear that experiences differ from scheme to scheme. The Government recognise that recent years have been particularly challenging for some employers providing defined benefit pensions and the trustees responsible for running these schemes.
The Green Paper looks at a range of issues that have been raised by various stakeholders, for example, whether the Pensions Regulator’s powers should be extended to improve member protection. It focuses on four key areas—funding and investment, scheme affordability, member protection and consolidation, so that we can start to build consensus on whether we may want to reform the current system.
The paper relates only to private sector defined benefit schemes and is not concerned with other types of pension provision, such as public service pension schemes or defined contribution schemes.
The Government want to hear from all those with an interest in defined benefit schemes, in particular from scheme members themselves. The consultation will close on 14 May 2017.
[HCWS479]
House of Lords
Social Mobility
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the findings of the report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Social Mobility The Class Ceiling: Increasing access to the leading professions, published on 17 January, that talented young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are facing significant barriers to accessing jobs in the top professions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash)
My Lords, we welcome this excellent report highlighting that, all too often, family background determines success in later life. The Secretary of State recently set out how education should be central to transforming social mobility by ensuring that all young people have access to the right knowledge and skills, high-quality advice and opportunities for challenging, life-shaping experiences to prepare them for career success. Employers also need to do more to attract and draw out the talents of employees from all backgrounds.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I thank the Minister for his helpful Answer. The report of the All-Party Group on Social Mobility—I declare an interest as co-chair—vividly demonstrated that students from disadvantaged backgrounds were not gaining access to either the elite universities or the top professions, with the gulf between London and the rest of the country being particularly stark. The report contains important and wide-ranging recommendations to tackle this. Can the Minister say when the Government will be able to respond in writing to these recommendations, and will he agree to meet with me to discuss them?
Lord Nash
We will be responding in due course on the recommendations and will, of course, focus very much on opportunity areas—to take the noble Baroness’s point about the situation outside London. I agree entirely with the conclusions. The Sutton Trust tells us that the 7% of the population educated privately gets nearly 60% of the top jobs in this country. We have to do better than that. I will be delighted to meet with the noble Baroness.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Will my noble friend agree that a useful contribution to assisting low-income families could be made through the provision of large numbers of free places at independent schools under partnership arrangements between the Government and schools themselves?
Lord Nash
As my noble friend knows, we are very keen to encourage partnership arrangements between independent schools and the state sector, and we are in active discussions with them about that. We are considering all the proposals we have had—some 7,000—as a result of our consultation document, and we will react to those shortly.
Lord Bird (CB)
Are the Government aware that not only are the professions out of kilter with regard to the socially immobile but that social immobility was a very large factor in the Brexit referendum last year?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the social mobility strategy recommended by the APPG should be developed as a matter of urgency so that the country can make use of all the talents available? Will he further agree that mentoring of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, especially those from black and ethnic minorities, is absolutely invaluable, and will he welcome the new initiative, entitled One Million Mentors, which was launched last week?
Lord Nash
As I said, we will respond to the report shortly, but I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of mentoring. I know that Chance UK has an active programme in that, and the system she refers to is definitely to be encouraged. At the Bridge Academy in Hackney, which is sponsored by UBS, over 1,000 UBS employees mentor individual pupils every year. When you talk to pupils, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, many of whom have often not met people who work in white-collar jobs before at all, you understand that mixing with people like this and going to their place of work clearly has a transformational impact.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, as well as the fact that there are not as many disaffected and disadvantaged young people getting into Russell group universities as there should be, there is a real problem in that, once they are in key roles, they do not progress as quickly as they should, particularly in areas such as the Civil Service and the NHS.
Lord Nash
My noble friend makes a very good point. I think that she is talking about what the Sutton Trust has termed “essential life skills”. It recently pointed out that Harvard University has said that the people who have been successful in recent years and are likely to be successful over the next 20 years are those with essential life skills. It is very important that all schools develop these, and I know that many of them do. Certainly, the Civil Service has a talent programme for bringing on people from a wide range of backgrounds.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, building on the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the Careers & Enterprise Company launched a mentoring community and fund. What resources are the Government providing to ensure that this mentoring, particularly in soft skills and confidence-building, is available for children from disadvantaged backgrounds?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right to point to the Careers & Enterprise Company, which seems to have got off to a great start. It is very ably run by a bright young woman called Claudia Harris, formerly of McKinsey. We have made £90 million available over this Parliament for the Careers & Enterprise Company and for programmes that use the mentoring approach. The CEC has already appointed 1,300 advisers across the country to help improve links between employers and schools.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches and then, if we have time, we can hear from the Labour Benches.
Lord Laming
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is a real challenge to help these young people to recognise the talents that they have, to give them a sense of ambition and to nurture those ambitions through these important years in their development?
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with the noble Lord on that. Increasingly we are seeing schools develop what is sometimes called a “raising ambitions” programme to raise their pupils’ horizons and ambitions. All too often in the past schools have not been ambitious enough for their pupils. I recently attended a very inspiring event run by Ormiston Academies Trust, which is developing a raising aspirations programme, and we are seeing many more of these kinds of programmes being developed.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, perhaps I may raise the issue of the new universities and the large numbers of young people from working-class backgrounds who choose to do law and invest in their futures by going on to qualify as solicitors but do not get training contracts. There is an absolute dearth of these contracts for students from modern universities—the former polytechnics and all these new universities that the Government are so keen to create. Ordinary working-class families encourage their children to go into areas where they assume there will be jobs, but there are no training contracts because they all go to the privileged.
IPP Prisoners
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recommendation of Michael Gove, the former Secretary of State for Justice, in his November 2016 Longford Lecture that the approximately 500 Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) prisoners “who have been in jail for far longer than the tariff for their offence” should be released.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, we estimate that there are approximately 200 IPP prisoners who have served longer than the maximum term available for their offence. Release of IPP prisoners is a decision for the Parole Board, made on the balance of risks the offender poses to the public. To improve the efficiency with which IPP cases pass through the parole system, a new unit has been established within the Ministry of Justice, working closely with the Parole Board.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
That is a disappointing if unsurprising Answer, and apparently an answer to an earlier question of mine about prisoners who had served beyond the maximum term. This refers to those who have served way beyond their tariff term. Would not the Minister agree that there comes a point in the life of an IPP prisoner, even if he cannot persuade the Parole Board that he will never reoffend, when he has served so many years—seven, eight, nine, 10—beyond his tariff term that simple justice demands his immediate release?
Lord Keen of Elie
The noble and learned Lord raises a complex and difficult problem. It was said previously that this sentencing policy was the legacy of a Labour Government. That is unfair. It was a wrong turning in sentencing policy undertaken with the best of intentions which fell victim to the law of unintended consequences. Successive Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments have wrestled with a simple solution to a complex question. If we were going to resolve this matter as simply as the noble and learned Lord suggests, we would not start from where are at present.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, is it the lack of political will that is virtually interning these prisoners or the lack of resources of the Parole Board? If it is resources, will the Minister seek the help of the Treasury in carrying out a cost-benefit analysis of the cost of incarcerating these prisoners?
Lord Keen of Elie
The noble and learned Lord raises a good point. The gateway for these prisoners is the Parole Board and, for the particular reason that we need to deal with this cohort of prisoners, we have provided further additional resources to the Parole Board. As a result, its numbers have increased recently by 49 members and the outstanding cases in this regard listed before it have reduced by about 40% in the period from January 2015 to December 2016.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Minister knows from this and questions from other noble and learned Lords that he has no sympathy from former judges in this House on this issue, and virtually none from the judiciary at large. He often says that sentencing is for the judges. Will the Government now listen to the judges on this, change the release test for the Parole Board, as he has power to do under the LASPO Act, and work to free the 3,000-plus IPP prisoners who have already served their tariff, thus both reducing the prison population by 4% and removing a manifest injustice?
Lord Keen of Elie
I note what the noble Lord says. Clearly we have a duty of care to this cohort of prisoners, who are deemed to be at high risk of committing further serious violent or sexual offences. That is one of the issues we have to deal with. However, our duty of care extends beyond this cohort of prisoners. It is also owed to those members of the public who would potentially be the victims of these persons if they were simply released without adequate determination and supervision.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, as an alternative, will the Government consider releasing those inmates on indeterminate sentences, a provision that no longer applies, if they have served longer than a determinate sentence for the same offence? The backlog has to be tackled in some form.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the right reverend Prelate but I would point out that the backlog is being tackled and the rate of release of these prisoners is increasing all the time. The number of IPP prisoners is now at an all-time low, but we have to remember that these are individuals who for a variety of reasons pose a very serious threat to members of the public. Indeed, a recent analysis of IPP prisoners still in custody whose tariff was originally less than two years indicates that 88% were assessed as posing a high or very high risk of causing further serious harm.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble and learned friend the Minister has suggested that 200 hundred prisoners come within the cohort that is the subject of the Question. Can he reassure the House that, as regards those prisoners, there will have been at least one determination by the Parole Board as to whether it is safe to release them? Can he also reassure the House that, if necessary, further determinations will be made or hearings held to reconsider whether it may be safe to release them?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to my noble friend. These prisoners have been the subject of assessment by the Parole Board and, where they have failed to satisfy the board that they cannot be released without a risk of serious harm to the public, further provisions have been put in place for psychological assessment and assistance. Where before there were long backlogs, various courses are now available to help these prisoners towards an open system of supervision.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, last September the Chief Inspector of Prisons reported that there were 3,200 prisoners over tariff, 42% of whom—1,400—were five years or more over their tariff. The chief inspector called for decisive action to,
“ensure adequate resources and timely support are available to work with IPP prisoners to reduce their risk of harm to others and to help them progress through the custodial system towards consideration for release”.
How many of those 1,400 prisoners have since been released and what is the likelihood that they will be released over the next year or two?
Lord Keen of Elie
As regards the figures, the maximum term of imprisonment available to the courts for the offences that the vast majority of IPP prisoners were convicted for was and remains life imprisonment. Therefore the significant majority of IPP prisoners will never reach the point of serving more than the statutorily available maximum penalty. I do not know how many of the 1,400 cited by the noble Lord have been released but I will undertake to write to him if those figures are available. Their prospects for release must depend on an assessment by the Parole Board, but I would add that the ministry is addressing the question of whether the onus that lies with regard to those Parole Board hearings should be reconsidered.
Secondary Schools: Counselling Services
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many secondary schools in England do not currently provide in-school counselling services for their students.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, school-based counselling can be very valuable and we have published advice, drawn up with experts, on the way that schools can provide effective access to counselling. It is right for schools to decide on the support they provide for their pupils and we do not make them report centrally. However, we are undertaking a large-scale survey to give us nationally representative data on how schools support the mental well-being of their pupils, including through counselling.
Lord Oates (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response. He will be aware of the anguish caused to young people and their parents when they are unable to access the services they need through mental health support in schools, or through child and adolescent mental health services. Will the Minister review the criteria used by CAMHS in assessing mental health service referrals in the light of recent figures published by the Education Policy Institute’s Mental Health Commission on young people’s mental health, which show that a quarter of all referrals from schools to CAMHS are currently declined?
Lord Nash
We are working with the Department of Health to commission a review of CAMHS in order to identify areas for improvement, and every clinical commissioning group has been asked to submit a plan to NHS England on how it is going to improve CAMHS provision. As the noble Lord will know, we are also expanding our joint training pilot for single points of contact in schools and in CAMHS from the original 225 schools to a further 1,200.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the earliest possible intervention in adolescent mental health issues is often the most effective? If that is so, will Her Majesty’s Government make it clear to schools that they have a duty of care to provide counselling services in all schools?
Lord Watts (Lab)
Can the Minister say how children who are being educated at home are provided with counselling services?
The Lord Bishop of Ely
My Lords, does the Minister agree that an excellent education in a medical setting for those with severe mental health issues is essential to their recovery? Will he join me in paying tribute to the importance of education in acute mental health settings, such as the Pilgrim Pupil Referral Units in Cambridgeshire, which provide a stable learning environment for children and young people?
Lord Nash
I am delighted to join the right reverend Prelate in celebrating the value of this important work. I pay particular tribute to the Pilgrim PRU, which provides specialist support to build resilience and self-confidence, enabling children to reintegrate into mainstream or other settings. In her speech last month on mental health, the Prime Minister talked about ending the burning injustice of mental health problems. Children with more serious mental health problems deserve the same opportunities as everyone else. Ensuring that they get high-quality education is vital to their success in later life.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
Will the Department for Education work with the Department of Health to carry out a joint cost-benefit analysis of having counsellors in schools compared to the cost of mental health services for children later in life?
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my non-financial registered interest as a trustee of Yavneh academy trust. Only two weeks ago, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visited the school, and much time during the visit was taken up with sessions on charitable endeavours and helping others. We were pleased to be able to show how the college was taking seriously its in-school counselling. What more can the Government do to build on additional investment in children and young people’s mental health and to give schools support for specialist services?
Lord Nash
We have committed an additional £1.4 billion for mental health services for children, young people and new mothers over the course of the Parliament. We are developing a Green Paper and as I said, we have asked all CCGs to submit their plans. We have extended our joint training pilot scheme and the Prime Minister has committed to strengthening the accountability of children and young people’s mental health provision.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I can tell the House that schools are not providing counselling for financial reasons. The Conservatives’ 2015 election manifesto said that school funding would be protected. It is not. For the first time in 20 years, it is being protected in only cash terms, not real terms, which is leading to teacher shortages and failure to provide support services. The education services grant is supposed to provide such services, but it has been subject to savage cuts. Will the Minister tell the House how he really expects schools to respond to the increasing demand from children with additional needs, when the schools do not have the funding to provide for it?
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, are there any plans for the CQC and Ofsted to work together to inspect how well schools are looking after the mental health and well-being of their children?
Lay Magistrates
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage more people to come forward to train as lay magistrates.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, while magistrates’ recruitment is the responsibility of the Lord Chief Justice, the department is supporting the judiciary in endeavouring to improve the application process to make it more accessible and suitable for a wide range of applicants. There is generally no shortage of applicants for the vacancies that arise.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble and learned friend for his reply. As he will be aware, the number of lay magistrates has plummeted in the past 10 years, from 30,000 to 17,000 today, and is predicted to fall to 11,000 in 2020. Can the Minister assure me that the drive for diversity, which I strongly support, is not compromising the principle of merit that should apply to all public appointments? Does he agree that the solution lies in more prominent and proactive recruitment drives?
Lord Keen of Elie
While the number of serving magistrates has reduced significantly in the past decade, it is important to make it clear that this is not indicative of any difficulties with recruitment. The reduction in the number of magistrates is due primarily to changes in workload. Recruitment is undertaken in each local justice area, with 44 advisory committees responsible for recruiting and selecting magistrates. Of course, the aim is to recruit on the basis of talent but to ensure that talented people represent all backgrounds and communities they serve.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we have made no progress on diversity in the lay magistracy. At least gender diversity is not a problem, with a roughly equal number of men and women, although ethnic diversity has hardly moved. However, younger people are woefully and increasingly underrepresented. In 2000, about a third of lay magistrates were over 60. Now that figure is 55%. How will the Government address this? Currently, employers must allow staff time off to serve. Will the Government consider offering employers modest incentives as well to encourage recruitment of working-age magistrates?
Lord Keen of Elie
Magistrate remains a sought after role, and competition for vacancies tends to be strong. Advisory committees employ a range of techniques to reach out into their communities for applications to the Bench. This can and does include advertising in public places such as libraries, community centres and the local press. At present, there are no plans to put forward further financial incentives.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, in light of the concern about the age of magistrates, will the Minister look again at the unreasonably low retirement age of 70 for magistrates?
Lord Keen of Elie
I remind the noble Lord that the unreasonably low retirement age of 70 applies also to justices of the Supreme Court.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
Statistics from the Ministry of Justice show that 10% of magistrates are from a black and minority ethnic background, but can my noble and learned friend the Minister outline whether there is a specific recruitment drive that also addresses the need for young people from those communities? When black and minority ethnic young people come before a youth justice panel, it is very important that it is representative of their communities in a way that unfortunately the police force that arrested them might not have been.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is of course important that the magistrates’ Bench should be representative of the communities they serve, but it is equally important that we have regard to the skills, experience and talent required of those who sit on it. That tends to come with age and experience.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, some 7,000 magistrates will reach retirement age in the next five years. That is something like eight times the membership of your Lordships’ House. Fifteen per cent of cases are heard by Benches of two magistrates, yet district judges are still being recruited at salaries of around £100,000 a year. Is not the increasing reliance on district judges, alongside the failure to extend the recruitment of lay justices beyond the middle and upper classes and the impact of court closures, eroding the concept of local justice rooted in a sense of local community?
Lord Keen of Elie
The noble Lord draws attention to a number of issues concerning the disposal of cases between the district court and the magistrates’ court. That will be further addressed in detail as we proceed with the prison and courts reform Bill, which is presently under consideration. I reassure the noble Lord that there is no attempt to direct recruitment towards particular social classes or backgrounds. The 44 advisory committees responsible for recruiting magistrates in England and Wales are concerned to ensure that they recruit talented people from all backgrounds and all communities.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Has the Minister noticed, as I have, that in response to powerful pleas from Peers on all sides he and his noble friend Lord Nash have merely read out extracts from the brief provided by their civil servants? Are Ministers in the House of Lords no longer allowed to say, “I’ll take that back and discuss it with my colleagues”?
Lord Keen of Elie
I was not aware that the noble Lord had read my brief before I arrived in the Chamber. I rather think that if he did he did it in a cursory manner, because I can assure him that the answers I have given have not simply been a recitation of what was in the written brief.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, my noble and learned friend referred to the reduction of workload among magistrates. Can he confirm that that is at least in part due to the reduction in the rate of crime in the UK at the moment? Will he also register his and the Government’s approval of the contribution that magistrates make to the criminal justice system? I think they decide something like 90% of all cases.
Lord Keen of Elie
My noble friend is absolutely right: more than 90% of all criminal cases are disposed of by the magistrates’ Bench. If I may read a little further—
Lord Keen of Elie
—it might be noted that of course they take on an increasing burden but against the background of a decreasing rate of criminal activity.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the captains of RN ships are trained, to an extent, as lay magistrates to conduct summary trial, and they must form a nice pool, when they retire, to go into this area. Does the Minister agree that if we had more ships and more people, this would help?
Lord Keen of Elie
The noble Lord raises an interesting cross-departmental issue. One downside to his proposal would be its negative impact on our concern to ensure the age spectrum of those sitting on the magistrates’ Bench.
Business of the House
(7 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Standing Orders 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) and 48 (Amendments on Third Reading) be dispensed with on Tuesday 7 March to allow the Report stage and third reading of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill to be taken on that day and to allow manuscript amendments to be tabled and moved for the third reading.
Digital Economy Bill
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedules 1 to 3, Clauses 5 to 14, Clauses 28 to 30, Clauses 15 to 27, Clauses 31 to 94, Schedule 4, Clauses 95 to 99, Title.
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
(7 years, 9 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, it is an honour to open this two-day debate for while the Bill is short and straightforward, it is historic. The fact that 187 noble Lords will contribute to its Second Reading is testament to the seriousness with which this House takes its constitutional duty to scrutinise legislation. The challenge of responding will fall to my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley and I can think of no one better equipped to tackle this daunting task.
In May 2015 a Conservative Government were elected with a clear manifesto commitment to,
“negotiate a new settlement for Britain in the EU”,
to,
“ask the British people whether they want to stay in on this basis, or leave”,
and to,
“honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome”.
The Government have delivered on these commitments. This House passed an Act to deliver a referendum without placing conditions on the result. On 23 June 2016, the British people delivered their verdict. The Bill is not about revisiting that debate; rather it responds to the judgment of the Supreme Court that,
“an Act of Parliament is required to authorise ministers to give notice of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the European Union”.
It asks Parliament to confer on the Prime Minister the power to notify and commence formal negotiations for withdrawal from the EU.
Many views have been expressed about what might be expected from your Lordships’ House as we scrutinise the Bill. Some have asserted that this House will ignore the referendum result and seek to use the Bill to frustrate the process of leaving the EU. As someone who understands our collective sense of responsibility to our important constitutional role, I do not share those concerns. I am confident that noble Lords will take a constructive approach in our deliberations. I am under no illusions about the challenge and rigour that will be evident in our debates, and that is right and proper. Noble Lords bring a wealth of expertise to our proceedings and it is precisely when we bring this to bear that we show this House at its best. But I also know that noble Lords respect the primacy of the elected House and the decision of the British people on 23 June last year.
The Bill was the subject of detailed debate in the other place and was passed unamended with an overwhelming majority of 372. It comes to us with a strong mandate from both the people and the elected House. We should not overlook that. Although this is an important Bill, it simply allows the Government to start the process of withdrawing from the EU. Clause 1(1) confers on the Prime Minister the power to notify, under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU—a decision taken by the people of the United Kingdom.
Clause 1(1) also gives the Prime Minister the power to start the process to leave Euratom, because although Euratom is constituted under a separate treaty, the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 made it clear that the term “EU” as used in legislation includes Euratom. Euratom is a separate treaty-based organisation but uses the same institutions as the EU. So as a matter of EU law as well as UK law, the treaties are uniquely joined. Triggering Article 50 also entails giving notice to leave Euratom. While our future relationship with Euratom will be a matter for the negotiations, the Prime Minister has been clear that this is a priority area. Our nuclear industry remains of strategic importance and leaving Euratom does not affect our aim of maintaining effective arrangements for civil nuclear co-operation, safeguards, safety and trade with Europe and our international partners.
Clause 1(2) makes it clear that the power to trigger Article 50 may be conferred on the Prime Minister regardless of any restrictions in other legislation, including the European Communities Act 1972. The Bill is the legal means by which to give the Prime Minister power to commence withdrawal negotiations, and nothing more. The Bill is not the place to try to shape the terms of our exit, restrict the Government’s hand before they enter into complex negotiations, or attempt to rerun the referendum. The Bill is the beginning of a process and a discussion we will be having in this House and the other place for years to come. The legislative programme that follows the Bill will be a huge task but one on which I am sure all sides of the House will work together constructively. The Chief Whip and I will work through the usual channels to ensure that we continue to be able to do our valuable work effectively.
Looking ahead, the Prime Minister has set out a global vision for the UK outside the European Union. We want a comprehensive new partnership with the EU and we want the right deal for the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government have ensured since the referendum that the devolved Administrations are fully engaged in our preparations to leave the EU because a good deal will be one that works for all parts of the UK. The Government’s White Paper sets out in detail our 12 objectives for the negotiations. As noble Lords will know, they are: to provide certainty and clarity wherever we can; to take control of our own laws; to strengthen the precious union of the United Kingdom; to maintain the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland; to control immigration to the UK from Europe; to secure the rights of EU nationals in the UK, and UK nationals in the European Union; to protect and enhance workers’ rights; to pursue a bold and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU; to secure new trade agreements with other countries; to ensure that the UK remains the best place for science and innovation; to continue to co-operate with our European partners in important areas such as crime, terrorism and foreign affairs; and to deliver a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. In negotiating our new partnership, we want to be good neighbours and strong partners. We are leaving the EU but we are not leaving Europe.
As we shape a new future for the United Kingdom, it is right that Parliament plays a full role. We will ensure that Parliament sees as much of our strategy as possible, as long as it does not damage our negotiating position or our national interest, and the Government will bring forward a Motion on the final agreement, to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. We expect and intend that this will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.
Noble Lords have already demonstrated the value of the work of this House as we prepare to leave the EU. Eleven reports relating to Brexit have been published by our Select Committees, with at least eight more to come in the next few weeks. The first tranche of reports covered issues including the impact on financial services, trade, fisheries, policing and security, and the acquired rights of EU nationals. The government responses will be published over the next few weeks and the committees are well under way on their next inquiries. The EU Committee has produced useful reports on parliamentary scrutiny of the process and UK-Irish relations, and has travelled to Brussels, Strasbourg, Cardiff and Edinburgh as part of this work. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, is seated somewhere here—I hope he found a place. I pay tribute to him, to members of the EU Committee and the sub-committees, and to the expert staff who have supported them. Valuable inquiries on Brexit have also been carried out by the Constitution Committee, the Science and Technology Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Economic Affairs Committee has announced its own Brexit-related inquiry and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for his work in bringing together the Brexit liaison group to facilitate co-ordination of activity in your Lordships’ House.
Ministers will continue to provide regular updates to Parliament and as we propose to convert the acquis—the body of EU law—into UK law when we leave, it will be for Parliament to scrutinise any changes to our domestic legislation that we make once we have left. As this House regularly reminds me, the process of leaving the European Union is complex but it is also an opportunity for your Lordships’ House to demonstrate the valuable role that we can play. I know that the great repeal Bill will be of particular interest but it will be only one of a number of Bills brought before Parliament during the process of exiting the EU. From immigration to customs, this House and the other place will have a huge number of opportunities to help shape the future direction of our country—and, I believe, to do so for the better.
The Government are determined to trigger Article 50 by 31 March to deliver on the decision of the British people. The Bill before us is a procedural part of that withdrawal process. I welcome the constructive tone we have heard from the Opposition, saying that they will not seek to frustrate this process while of course undertaking the scrutiny role that we are here to perform. Leaving the European Union offers our nation many opportunities. I am committed to working with all noble Lords to ensure that we achieve the right deal for Britain. This Bill confers on the Prime Minister the power to begin the process of leaving the EU and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her opening comments. As she was hunting for the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, in the sea of faces today, it struck me how pleasing it is to see such a full House on the first Monday back after recess, and we extend a welcome not just to all noble Lords who are in their place but to distinguished guests visiting from the other place. All of us will be spending a lot of time together over the coming days and weeks, and I thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for volunteering to wind up for our Benches tomorrow evening.
Last year on 23 June, this country held an historic referendum with a straightforward, direct question: “Should the UK remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union?”. It required a straightforward, direct answer: a single cross in either the remain box or the leave box. The result of that referendum, although hardly overwhelming, was clear in favour of leaving the EU, but although the question was simple and straightforward, the simplicity ended there. For those charged with implementing the decision, it has been anything but. It led to the resignation of a Prime Minister who had promised that whatever the result he would stay and see it through, it led to the Government going to court to avoid seeking parliamentary approval on an issue that was supposed to be about sovereignty, and it exposed the lack of preparation for a leave vote.
That lack of government planning has created a vacuum in which uncertainty has thrived. “Brexit means Brexit” was perhaps the most unwise of all statements following the referendum—it just served to highlight that void. Until the two years of negotiation have ended, and until the pompously, and hopefully inaccurately, named “great” repeal Bill and consequent legislation have been completed, none of us knows what Brexit will look like, and that has created and fuelled uncertainty for businesses, universities, science, and environmentalists and, worryingly, for EU citizens living and working in the UK and UK citizens living and working in other EU countries. It has become obvious that no thought had been given to our citizens in Gibraltar or to the implications for Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement.
A recent report identified 1957 as the happiest year of the last century. It was a good year. It was the year that my mum and dad met, and I followed soon after. Why was it the happiest year? It was not just because of that. It was a time of low wages and poor housing and we had not yet had the benefit of the social and reforming legislation of the 1960s and 1970s, but it was a time of optimism. Few of our young people today—the millennials, as they are often termed—will talk with such optimism for the future, faced as they are with job and housing insecurity and a world that seems to be becoming increasingly more dangerous. Obviously, not all of that anxiety is a knock-on effect of the referendum, and membership of the EU would not solve all our problems, any more than it caused them. But 1957, with the horrors of the war years fading, was also a time of hope with a brighter future ahead, and let us not forget that in that same year, 60 years ago, part of that optimism led to the treaty of Rome.
While accepting that today’s EU is wider in shape and influence than the earlier models, we should acknowledge the vision of those men and women who wanted to see countries across the European continent knowing and understanding each other and at peace with one another. With so much of the debate around Brexit being about business and the economy, we should take care never to lose sight of that vision, and we should never take peace for granted. We still have battles to fight, even though wars are not fought between European countries. We have battles to fight in tackling serious and organised crime, terrorism, money laundering, drugs, child abuse and people trafficking, so we must continue working together across borders on these issues and on security, where we have taken a leading role in the European Union. The fact that around 190 speakers have signed up to speak today and tomorrow shows not just the depth of feeling on this issue but the expertise that is available here in your Lordships’ House. I hope the Government will make use of that, and I welcome the noble Baroness’s comments on that in her speech.
Many on both sides of this issue are angry and worried. Like many other noble Lords, I have received numerous emails. Some want us to block Brexit, while others consider any debate and discussion, or any amendments we may pass, as a constitutional outrage. Much of the work of this House is undertaken away from the public gaze, and even those with an interest in Parliament will be more familiar with the work of the elected Chamber. With some of the ill-informed reports and comments, and when certain newspapers call judges, “Enemies of the People”, we should not be surprised that our role is often misunderstood, and that some exaggerated and inaccurate outrage has been hurled at your Lordships. But we should be surprised and angry with those who should know better. MPs, even Peers from your Lordships’ House and an anonymous “government source” have threatened this House with 600 or 1,000 extra Conservative Peers to get this legislation through, or with abolition. I had to point out to one Conservative MP that it would take around two years to get 1,000 new Peers, which might be a little too late for this Bill.
We will not be threatened into not fulfilling our normal constitutional role—neither will we be goaded into acting irresponsibly. We have to have a serious and a responsible debate, and in doing so, if we ask the House of Commons to look again at an issue, it is not a constitutional outrage but a constitutional responsibility. It is the House of Commons that will, as always and quite rightly, have the final say. So let us be very clear. As I have said so many times before, in your Lordships’ House and publicly, we will not block, wreck or sabotage the legislation before us. Whatever our personal views, disappointments and genuine concerns for the future, that is not the role of this House. However, as I have also said, neither should we provide the Government with a blank cheque. It would be irresponsible to merrily wave the Government off to negotiate our future without parliamentary engagement or accountability, and merely ask them to return two years later with a deal. If sovereignty is to mean anything, it has to mean parliamentary responsibility.
This legislation is the first stage of a process by which the Prime Minister can invoke Article 50 to start negotiations to leave the European Union, and will lead to the so- called great repeal Bill, by which we will start to bring provisions derived from EU law into UK law. We will treat this Bill appropriately, and as seriously as we do all primary legislation. As evidenced from the amendments already tabled, we will seek improvements, encourage ministers to make reasonable changes and possibly—just possibly—ask our colleagues in the other place to reconsider on specific issues. That is not delaying the process, it is part of the process and has no impact on the Government’s self-imposed deadline. We will work, as we always do, with others across your Lordships’ House, including noble Lords on the government Benches.
As we have already seen from the excellent Lords Select Committee reports, many of the issues to be addressed are complicated. They are complex and require wisdom, experience, thoughtful strategy and serious negotiation. Whether it is the issue of the Irish border or trade policy, of our fishing industry or of fighting crime and remaining at the forefront of dealing with security issues, this is not going to be easy.
The Bill is very specific and about process rather than outcomes. But process is important. Both those who advocated this path and those charged with implementing the outcome bear a heavy responsibility. Our negotiating teams will need the best possible support. They will need to scrutinise. They will need to challenge. The motivation to get the best possible deal will be driven by understanding the complexities involved, not a glib confidence that it is all going to be fine. The process of Brexit cannot be run solely by those who have no doubt. It has to engage those who fear the worst and will work for the best. After the division of the referendum, the Prime Minister has to make this a Brexit not just for the 52% but one that is also understood by the 48%. We should also consider those who at 16 and 17 were denied the opportunity to vote on their future.
Ministers frequently state how the scrutiny, challenge and revision function of this House improves legislation. That is our sole purpose. Our amendments are guided by key principles and have been drafted after reflecting on the debates in the other place and comments made by Ministers. They include parliamentary engagement to ensure that the UK Parliament is not less engaged or less informed than the European Parliament or other national parliaments; a meaningful vote on negotiations; immediately protecting EU citizens living in the UK; and our commitment to the Good Friday or Belfast agreement, which has helped to secure peace and a soft border with our nearest European neighbour, the Irish Republic. When the Bill was agreed by the House of Commons, it was after Government commitments on some of those issues, as helpfully indicated by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, so would it not be helpful if they were written into the Bill itself?
Parallel to the negotiating process as we debate the great repeal Bill and subsequent legislation, we will do our utmost to ensure that ministerial promises not to dilute employment and social rights or environmental and consumer protections are kept, and that bringing these issues into UK legislation is about sovereignty, not weakening legislation. As we have already heard, the ongoing work of our EU Select Committees will be of significant value to the Government throughout and beyond the Brexit process. I am pleased that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, have recognised that today.
Given that the Prime Minister is playing catch-up on Brexit, with her Government distracting themselves and Parliament with a challenge to the court ruling and dithering over the White Paper, we now need a more mature approach. This is a defining moment for our country. There must be some acknowledgment from the Government that this process is not just about the legislation before us and where it leads but about the need to craft a new vision for our role in the world that is realisable and sustainable, brings our country together and gives hope and optimism to our young people and the generations to come. Our scrutiny of this process over the coming months and years will hold to that vision.
Lord Newby (LD)
Well, my Lords, finally we have the Article 50 Bill. If the Government had brought it forward last July, six months of delay could have been avoided. Since then, three things in particular have happened that require us to take stock and to fashion a response.
First, there was the deliberate decision of the Prime Minister to prioritise control of EU migration and the severing of links with the European Court of Justice over membership of the single market and the customs union. As George Osborne put it, they have,
“chosen … not to make the economy the priority in this negotiation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/17; col. 1034.]
Although some seek to portray that as an inevitable consequence of the 23 June vote, it was not. Many prominent Brexit supporters, including Nigel Farage, Dan Hannan and the Brexit Secretary himself suggested that we might remain in the single market—for example, by adopting the Norwegian precedent. So the decision to rip us out of the single market was a deliberate choice by the Prime Minister, and one that deserves to be challenged.
Secondly, as a consequence of the form of hard Brexit chosen by the Government, they have been forced to pivot our trade and indeed our political priorities towards the USA, and they have done so with unalloyed enthusiasm. In any era this would be a risky strategy, but the election of Donald Trump makes an America-first policy by this country not only risky but demeaning. The bold assertion by the Foreign Secretary that the US “shares our values” is unsustainable under a Trump presidency. On a wide variety of fronts—not just his ban on asylum seekers but on free trade, climate change and relations with Russia and Iran—Trump’s policies are opposed to British values and interests. I am sure the Prime Minister is acutely aware of this, yet her headlong rush to the US, offering them the trinket of a state visit, only serves to underline her weakness and the weakening position of the UK.
Lord Newby
No, my Lords. There are 190 other speakers; the noble Lord will have his chance.
Thirdly, we have now had the White Paper setting out the Government’s negotiating stance. With the stark exception of its rejection of the single market and the European Court, the White Paper is a rather horrifying mixture of pious aspiration and complacent illusion. The Prime Minister’s preface sets the tone. British exceptionalism abounds. We have,
“the finest intelligence services, the bravest armed forces, the most effective hard and soft power”.
What is more, according to the White Paper,
“the country is coming together”,
with,
“65 million people willing us to make it happen”.
The whole tone portrays the UK as a sort of a fettered giant, a national equivalent of Clark Kent which, having entered the Brexit telephone booth, can emerge as a Superman ready to take on the world and win. Either the Prime Minister believes this, which is deeply worrying; or she hopes that by whistling a happy tune, all will work out well, which is scarcely more reassuring.
In view of these developments, how should this House approach the Bill before us? Can we and should we seek simply to send it on its way, or can we and should we seek to amend it? On the first question, the answer is crystal clear. We have the power to ask the Commons to think again on any piece of legislation, large or small. I hope the Government will accept that. When we had the Statement in response to the Supreme Court ruling on 24 January, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that,
“we in this House, as an unelected Chamber, need to tread with considerable care on this issue as we proceed”.
The clear implication was that we should not be pressing amendments. In response, however, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, replied:
“It would be very useful if, when we debate this Bill and there are opposing views and we ask the other place to think again, we do not have Ministers, or anybody else, talking about constitutional crises. This place cannot have the last word. A Government defeat in your Lordships’ House is simply a request to the Commons to look at the issue again—that is all it is”.—[Official Report, 12/1/17; cols. 561 and 567.]
That sums up the position perfectly.
I therefore hope that Ministers in this House will not mimic the attitude of some of their colleagues in another place by dismissing concerns or queries raised by Members of your Lordships’ House as merely opposing the will of the people or by saying that we are trying to obstruct the process. No significant body of opinion in this House is seeking to prevent the passage of the Bill, but there is a world of difference between blocking the Bill and seeking to amend it.
So, if we clearly have the power to amend the Bill, should we positively seek to do so? I believe that we should. Brexit is the most important single issue which has faced the country for decades. For many of us, the approach being adopted by the Government is little short of disastrous. For those of us—and there are many in your Lordships’ House—for whom Europe has been a central theme of our entire political lives, to sit on our hands in the circumstances is both unthinkable and unconscionable.
Many of us throughout the House have always been proud internationalists. We have a profound and deep-rooted commitment to partnership with our European neighbours, a partnership which has resulted in a peaceful Europe where we work in co-operation with one another to overcome common adversaries—climate change, disease, organised crime, terrorism—and to share in the benefits of close relations with our neighbours. How could we possibly justify supine acceptance of what the Government are proposing to ourselves, let alone to others who are watching?
How then should be seek to amend the Bill? There are several sorts of amendments that were debated in the Commons. These amendments related to parliamentary scrutiny, to the role of the devolved Administrations, to impact assessments and to negotiating priorities, from the relationship to the single market to the rights of EU citizens in the UK. All of these are extremely important areas. We on these Benches will want to work across the House with others who seek to pursue them, but for us the key question as we begin the negotiations is: what happens at the end of the process? The Government were not given a blank cheque by the electorate. Voting for departure is not the same as voting for a destination.
If and when the Prime Minister reaches a Brexit deal, who will ratify it on behalf of the nation? Only three bodies could do so: the Government, Parliament, or the people as a whole. The Government have already said that they will give Parliament a vote on the deal, although at present they seem to be willing to offer a vote on only one option—to accept the deal or crash out of the EU. We will of course seek in your Lordships’ House to give Parliament a more meaningful role at the end of the process, but even if we succeed, Parliament, having decided to ask the people to express a view on whether they wished to leave the EU, should not have the final say. If only parliamentarians had had a vote in the referendum, our future EU membership would be secure. Both MPs and Peers overwhelmingly thought that our better interests were served by staying in the EU, including, of course, many members of the current Administration—not least those in your Lordships’ House.
At the end of the process initiated by the people, only the people should have the final say. I realise that many in your Lordships’ House are strongly opposed to referenda and shrink from the prospect of having any more, but we now have a country more deeply divided on Brexit than ever. The anger of those who wanted to leave is now matched by the growing anger of those who wish to remain—particularly our young people. If at the end of this process we are to come together as a country, we need to dissipate this anger, and we believe that giving the people the final say will help to do so.
I must also challenge those many Members of your Lordships’ House who have approached me and my colleagues in recent weeks to say that they believe Brexit is a catastrophe for the country and fervently wish to avert it. How, other than a referendum, do noble Lords think this could be seen to be done legitimately? Having remitted power over our membership of the EU to the people, who but the people could ultimately exercise the power to think again? Of course, the idea of such a referendum should not be alien to the Government. David Davis has argued over a number of years for what he calls a “decision” referendum at the end of the negotiating process. He has not said much about that in recent months but he did let his guard slip in concluding his Second Reading speech on the Article 50 Bill in the Commons when he quoted Gladstone, who said: “Trust the people”. Trust the people. My Lords, we agree.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, my record in referenda has been mixed. Where I live north of the border I have taken part in three in recent years. I voted no in the referendum for devolution for Scotland in 1997, and the result went the other way; I voted no in the independence referendum in 2015, and the result fortunately went the way I voted; and I voted remain in the referendum last June—and as we all know, the result went the other way again. One out of three is my score so far, but my response to the result of all three is the same.
I recall clearly being challenged in this very place by a former Law Lord, Lord Wilberforce, when I spoke in a debate on the Scotland Bill, which followed the result of the referendum in 1997. With a genuine look of puzzlement on his face, he asked, “Why do you support devolution?”. “Because I believe in democracy” was my reply. These five words sum up the position that I find myself in now. Not only is there the result of the referendum itself but also the fact, as the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal reminded us, that there was a resounding majority in support of the Bill in the other place.
Therefore, however much I and the many, many others who have written to us during the past few days might wish that it were otherwise, I am convinced that there is no turning back. As it is, I confess to a keen desire to get on with the Article 50 process as soon as possible. I want to know where we are going. It has been made clear to us many times, particularly by the Minister, that the Government will not reveal their hand until notification is given and the process of negotiation is started. I am speaking only for myself, as I must do from this position on these Benches where all others speak for themselves, when I say that I find this acutely frustrating. I want the process to happen without delay so we can start focusing on the detail of the many issues of concern to us, both of substance and of procedure.
As for the wording of the Bill, its brevity calls to mind remarks made about legislation in a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, a few weeks ago: how good it is to find a Bill which says what it wants to say in as few words as possible; how good it is to have a Bill which does not have a Henry VIII clause—and, as the Explanatory Memorandum points out, there is no sunset clause, either. After all, the sun will scarcely have risen by the time the Bill’s purpose will have been spent. Is it too much to hope that the so-called great repeal Bill will measure up to those standards? Of course, this Bill leaves many questions unanswered on which we will wish to hold the Government to account. However, I do not see it as the function of the Bill to tie the Government’s hands before they proceed to invoke the article.
Let the Government have their Bill, I say. However, I would caution the Government against thinking that by introducing this legislation they have done all that the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller requires. Brevity is all very well but much more lies ahead. If passed, the Act will give the Government all the authority they need to give notification of the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU under Article 50. That is what the Bill says. However, the notification does no more than start the Article 50 process. The article makes it clear that the process involves two more stages, both mentioned in the article: negotiation, and the concluding of an agreement between the Union and the state in question. The Bill says nothing about these two further stages. I do not think it needed to give the Government the authority to negotiate, as none of the rights of the people who have written to us will be affected or lost at that stage. However, the concluding of an agreement is another matter entirely. The Bill does not say anything at all about that stage of the process.
The White Paper—written, of course, after the Bill was published—now tells us that the Government will put the final deal agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament. That was confirmed by the Secretary of State in the other place on 7 February when he said that it was intended that the final agreement would,
“be approved by both Houses of Parliament”,
and that,
“this will happen before the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 274.]
The timing is right, but obtaining approval by a resolution in Parliament is not the same thing as being given statutory authority to enter into that agreement—or, indeed, to withdraw from the EU if there is no agreement.
There is a respectable argument, which other noble—and noble and learned—Lords may say something about later in this debate, that only Parliament has the constitutional authority to authorise, by legislation, the concluding of an agreement with the EU or the act of withdrawal if that is what the Government decide that they have to do. As the Supreme Court said in Miller, at paragraph 123, a resolution of Parliament is an important political act, but it is not legislation and,
“only legislation which is embodied in a statute will do”.
That was why the court held that the change in the law that would result from commencing the Article 50 process must be made in the only way that our constitutional law permits: namely, through parliamentary legislation, which is where we are today. The argument that the Government may face is that the same reasoning must be applied to the final stage in the process, too. Even if there is some doubt about this, legislation would provide legal certainty. It would minimise the risk of further legal challenges.
All I am seeking to do is to caution the Government against thinking that this Bill on its own will give them all the authority they need, or that obtaining approval for an agreement by resolution is the same thing as being given statutory authority to conclude that agreement. They could have provided for that in this Bill, perhaps using the same formula as in Clause 1, by saying that the Prime Minister may conclude an agreement with the EU if the agreement has been approved by both Houses—but it has not done so. I must make it clear that I will not be asking for the Bill to be amended. Others may do so but, so far as I am concerned, it is up to the Government. My point is that they cannot escape from the effect of the Miller decision when we reach the end of the negotiation. It is all about respecting the sovereignty of Parliament. The law will see to that whatever the Government think, as it always does. I do hope that the Government will be sensible about this, and that further recourse to the courts will not be necessary.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
As many in your Lordships’ House are aware, my diocese covers most of south London and east Surrey. The voters there opted to remain in the European Union on 23 June 2016 by some margin; in the borough of Lambeth, where I live, nearly 80% of those voting opted to remain. Only in Sutton and in Surrey did votes tip the other way. What I have occasionally heard articulated, but have yet to see in action, is how the aspirations of those people—and indeed, if one thinks more widely, Londoners in general, or Scots, or the people of Northern Ireland or simply people under the age of 45—are to be taken into account. The majority of all these groups voted to remain. If we adopt a model for leaving the EU that ignores them, we risk a regional divide, generational resentment and a threat to the union.
The campaign, like that of 1975, was passionate and defining. Unlike 1975, it rode on divisions which have yet to pass away. Unlike 1975, there was little sophistication of argument in terms of what it is to be European, or detail as to what the alternative narrative for our place in the world might be. We should seek to mitigate the centrifugal forces unleashed. The Prime Minister, in her speech of 17 January, spoke of our European identity. It is time, both in these negotiations and without, to take practical steps to recognise this simple fact of geography and the cultural ties we share.
Arguably, we have more in common with the countries of western Europe than we do, for example, with the United States of America. For Her Majesty’s Government to respond more positively than they have done to amendments on the residence rights of EU citizens already living here would be one such practical action, but there must be others. The land border in Ireland is also of special concern. In addition, there is something providential in the untapped potential of our associations with the Commonwealth, a truly global entity. Such acts of affirmation that we are citizens of Europe would do something to assure the 48% that they are not ignored.
The issue around EU residents is not simply one of a quid pro quo for the 1.2 million to 2 million British citizens in other EU countries; it is about dealing with the uncertainty that stigmatises millions of our neighbours and erodes the common good.
It is good to read in the Government’s White Paper that, even in the EU, Parliament remains sovereign. It is in that light that I hope the Government will accept that the origins of persistent attempts to amend this Bill lie partly in their own resistance to parliamentary scrutiny of the process of leaving the EU. We do not legislate by plebiscite, nor do we govern solely by decree. We have, perforce, in recent months, under pressure and under judicial direction, rightly evolved a practical understanding of proper scrutiny in the second Chamber based on the constitutional bedrock of the Queen in Parliament rather than, as hitherto, the bare exercise of the royal prerogative. As I speak, the Prelates and Barons who scrutinised Magna Carta are looking down upon our deliberations, so there are long established precedents for the solemn task entrusted to us by the Bill. Our Writ of Summons commands us to attend to assemble for “arduous and urgent affairs” and to give “counsel”.
A fresh approach by the Executive of partnership with the legislature may indeed make this time in the life of our nation much more fruitful, not least because those with whom they must negotiate are not likely to prioritise solely economic considerations; otherwise, we may find that the Government’s confidence in the ease with which a deal may be struck is misplaced, and Parliament will be merely a frustrated bystander. Despite these and many other concerns shared by my colleagues on this Bench about the terms of our exit and our future relationship with the EU, I recognise that the Bill before your Lordships’ House is primarily about process rather than substance.
The electorate voted last year to leave the EU. Despite the vagaries of the European Union Referendum Act, it was clear that voters understood that they were, in effect, making a decision, not merely expressing an opinion. They did so in sharply differing numbers riven by age, income, qualifications and location. Regrettably, many parts of the country that have most benefited from EU funding voted decisively, if quixotically, to leave. The Bill in the form in which it comes before your Lordships passed the elected House with a large majority. The subject of what Britain’s future relationship with the EU should be remains an open question and should rightly be subject to intense debate and scrutiny. The Government will ease the Bill’s passage if they give way on scrutiny. It is the view of a number on these Benches, including my noble friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who regrets that he is unable to be here today, that it would be preferable not to weigh down the Bill with additional provisions. For these reasons, I take the view that, where there is a choice on offer between government assurances and the passing of amendments to the Bill, the more sensible course would be to bank the former and avoid the latter.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, at the last count, 179 Back-Benchers had signed up to speak in this debate. I have no wish to add to that number. However, noble Lords will know that we have adjusted the Sitting time tomorrow to take account of the unusually high demand from Members to speak across the two days. It may also be for the convenience of the House if I note that, if Back-Bench speeches average six minutes each, as recommended, we expect the House to rise around midnight both today and tomorrow. I hope that noble Lords will take note of that.
Lord Hague of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to be asked to set the first example of sticking to six minutes before the 178 speeches that follow. I declare my interests, non-financial and financial, in many organisations with an interest in EU membership: as chair of the Royal United Services Institute, as a director of Intercontinental Exchange, as an adviser to Citigroup, Linklaters and Teneo, and as a speaker for many organisations for a lot longer than six minutes.
I voted to remain in the European Union but I support the Bill, because the referendum was decisive. It was decisive because there was such a high participation—more people voted to leave the European Union than have ever voted for any British Government in history; because so many parts of the UK, although not all of them, voted that way; and because people were promised a referendum in the manifesto of the governing party of the country, and were promised that it would be decisive. Attempts to refight that referendum, which have begun a little in the last few days, are a great error. To ask people to “rise up” to fight Brexit—the words a few days ago of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair—is a great mistake. I have enormous respect for him—more than many in his own party have—particularly as he roundly defeated me in the 2001 general election. But if, nine months after that, I had asked people to “rise up” against the result, Mr Blair would not have been amused. He would have told me to listen to the voters and to abide by the result. The same advice can be given to him in these circumstances.
If there was a real chance of rising up successfully against leaving the European Union, it would open up the most protracted, bitter and potentially endless conflict in British society and politics that we have seen since the decades of debate on Irish home rule, and possibly even longer than that. It is not in the interests of our democracy and the governance of our country to do so. If there is no or little prospect of that succeeding, to ask people to rise up against it serves only to strengthen the hand of some in the EU who believe that if they make the negotiations difficult enough, we will somehow lose heart, which does not help a successful, negotiated outcome.
In any case, a country cannot go round in circles. Opinion will vary over the next few years. Opinion polls will say that people do not agree with leaving the EU any more, and then, six months later, that they do agree. But we cannot leave the EU in 2017, remain in it in 2018, and leave it again in 2019; by 2020 we will be too confused to know what we are doing. A country cannot go around in circles. A decision was made in the referendum. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, saying that people “expressed a view” in the referendum. That has a casual connotation to it, suggesting that they sauntered by the ballot box on 23 June and “expressed a view” about whether we should be in the EU. They made a decision in a process that was intended to be decisive and which was agreed at the time to be decisive. Therefore, as someone whose preference was to remain in the European Union, my second preference—given that my first is not available—is to leave it with some degree of unity, good order, confidence and determination, and for the country to seek advantages from leaving the EU, since we will inevitably have the disadvantages of doing so.
The case for invoking Article 50 is therefore overwhelming, and the case for doing so now is inescapable. There is a need to end the uncertainty—I go a long way with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on this. There are immensely complex negotiations to undertake. There is no reason to delay the start of those negotiations, as some have argued, because there are elections in Germany, France and the Netherlands. It is in the nature of the process set up by Article 50, with a two-year timetable, that the real bargains, compromises, trade-offs and deals will be made near the end of that process, allowing time for the consideration of this Parliament and the European Parliament. Therefore elections across Europe over the next six months are no reason to delay that, as that is not when those decisions will be made. I conclude that it is necessary to do this, and to do it now. Real democratic accountability comes from the Government being able to go to a general election in 2020 and be judged on how they conducted this process, as well as in Parliament beforehand.
If those two things are true, what form should the Bill take? It should take as simple a form as possible. Again, I go a long way with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I have negotiated in the European Union many times on behalf of this country, and I know that anyone involved in this negotiation will want this legislation to be as simple and straightforward as possible without additions to it that undercut and undermine Ministers’ positions. This Bill is pleasingly and unusually simple in its construction and content, and that should be welcomed. I fear that amendments of process to the Bill will turn out not to be so well thought out in two years’ time and that amendments of policy will undermine Ministers’ positions as they seek a successful outcome. Therefore, it is right to invoke Article 50 and to do so now with the simplest Bill that it is possible to bring forward, and I commend Ministers for doing so.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I am particularly pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, because I do not believe that it is a great error to revisit the principles or that doing so will open up a divide. The divide has opened up and I fear we are living in a very dangerous period of this country’s history. It is a time of rising intolerance and intimidation, especially for minorities and minorities’ opinions—even minorities of 48%. Now is not the time to add fuel to the bonfire of vanities and emboldened egos; now is the time to pause and reflect. It is indeed a time for calm.
Now is the time to ask that everyone respects fundamental principles of democracy, not least respect for different views and opinions, no matter how hard that may be for some. If we are truly to resolve the EU issue before us, it must be done by reaching a consensus, by taking account of the views of others and by truly trying to unite this divided country.
Therefore, I ask that the media respect, or at the very least cease attacking personally, those whose opinions are different from theirs and the opinions that they purport to represent on behalf of their readers, listeners and viewers, and to recognise that we too hold opinions in good faith. I ask that they also respect the independence of the judiciary in all its branches, whether the High Court, the Supreme Court or the Bench of magistrates, and that they acknowledge unequivocally that the rule of law and an independent judiciary define a democracy and protect those who seek its justice, especially in a country without a written constitution.
Like other noble Lords, I have been inundated with emails asking me to oppose Brexit, to protect the single market and freedom of movement, and to protect the fundamental rights that arise from the treaties—not least non-discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, belief, age, disability, gender, sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as environmental rights and protections. They ask, too, that I protect the rights of EU nationals living, working and studying in this country and, quite rightly, UK nationals living, working and studying in other parts of the EU. Their voices should be heard in the national debate and not be drowned out merely because they are part of a minority—a minority of more than 16 million people who voted.
Indeed, any civilised society and democracy worth its name is judged by how it treats its minorities and the dissenting opinions within. It is our duty to give a voice to the voiceless and to enable those who would otherwise be intimidated and silenced to be heard. Yet I am told that the minority must know its place and accept what the majority have decided. Well, I want to make a couple of points. If that were the case, I would argue that, once we have elected a Government, we should let them govern and there should be no opposition parties or debates during their period of office. I know that that is attractive to some but it is not the route of democracy.
Secondly, I have for my entire adult life fought those who have purported to represent the majority and political parties that have argued and voted against equality. Every step of the way, especially when I lost, I redoubled my efforts in that fight for the right to be heard and the right to equality. I did not give up then, despite the defeats, and I am not going to give up now. I want equality for the 16 million-plus people to be heard—those who voted against leaving the European Union and those who could not vote—because the outcome of this referendum affects us all. I want them to be heard because my voice, too, is amongst them.
At the moment you lose an election, a referendum or a fight for your principles, you do not ditch your principles because they are unfashionable or unpopular. To do so is to pay lip service to principles, values and beliefs. Worlds are changed for the better by people who have the courage to be unpopular and to do what is right, good, just and decent for the long term—not to give in to intimidation, threats or bullying but to fight and fight again, quietly and with dignity, and to pursue the same reasoned and argued principles. That is exactly what the anti-Europeans have been doing for decades and, if it was right for them, it should be right for other opinions now.
I will support amendments to protect the single market or the customs union—the principle of freedom of movement—and it is time the UK enforced the conditionality of the principle of freedom of movement, even if that means introducing national ID cards. I will support amendments to protect the rights of EU and UK nationals to work, live and study in the EU, and I will support amendments so that Parliament or the electorate have the final say on the negotiated agreement between the 27 and the UK.
I believe it is incumbent on your Lordships’ House, regardless of the threats of abolition or blackmail, from wherever they may come, to ask the other place to think again. If the amendments I have mentioned are not carried, I will not vote in favour of triggering Article 50 because I do not believe that hard Brexit is in the long-term interests of this country.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, makes it quite clear that the country is divided—in some ways more divided now than it was before the referendum—and that this process as it continues could lead to the country and its regions becoming increasingly divided. That gives us a great responsibility in how we contribute to the debate.
This House has an entirely legitimate role to play in scrutinising the Government’s approach to Brexit, both as the process proceeds and when it comes to the final package. Our role as a revising Chamber is not to throw out Bills at Second Reading but to examine the rationale for the proposals they contain. It is our role as a second Chamber to weigh up the Government’s proposals against our understanding of the national interest and to challenge the Government when we consider that their arguments do not make sense.
The Vote Leave campaign made much play before the referendum of the principle of restoring parliamentary sovereignty. Since June it has argued, in contradiction to that principle, that neither Chamber of Parliament can claim a significant role in scrutinising the Government’s changing interpretation of what leaving the European Union means. The will of the people, the Daily Mail insists, requires that we now accept whatever the Government put forward. So we are in danger of slipping from parliamentary democracy to direct democracy in which an authoritarian political leader is allowed to interpret occasional expressions of the popular will without a continuing process of criticism.
Nigel Farage’s French lodger, about whom the press showed much interest recently, is the director of the Institute for Direct Democracy in Europe, an institute supported by a group of hard-right nationalist parties across the EU—direct democracy against the necessary compromises and reasoned arguments of parliamentary democracy, in which popular fears and emotions are exploited by media and populist leaders to bully the opposition and target foreigners and minorities. The Conservative Government should not slip down that road, which would betray the best of the Conservative tradition.
It is not that I think that our current Prime Minister is in any way comparable to Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen, but I do fear that she has been captured by the authoritarian right of her party and the almost anti-democratic hysteria of the Daily Mail. Those of us who still believe in parliamentary democracy, with reasoned debate and with attention to evidence and detail at its core, must therefore insist that this Chamber, as part of Parliament, has an important role to play.
Ministers spent a good deal of time and effort quietly examining the detailed costs and benefits of EU membership under the coalition Government at the insistence of the Conservative side. Thirty-two papers on the balance of competences between the EU and the UK were carefully negotiated over 24 months on the basis of widespread consultation with stakeholders and experts in each sector, and the overwhelming consensus was that in most respects the current balance took UK interests well into account. Sadly, the response from the then Prime Minister in No. 10 was to bury the exercise as deeply as he could for fear of enraging the Europhobe right, so the public were left uninformed. But this Prime Minister cannot afford to bury sectional national interests and the impact of Brexit on them as negotiations move forward. If, at the end of the process, the gap between today’s optimistic promises and the hard compromises of the final package is too wide, the public will blame the Conservatives for the result.
Conservatives should therefore recognise that it is in their own enlightened interest to accept the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Newby and others that requires a resolution of both Houses on the final package and a national referendum on the terms agreed, and it is in the Government’s enlightened interest to inform Parliament and the public of what it is realistically possible to achieve as they move forward, rather than raising illusory hopes now and attracting outrage when they fall short later.
The recent White Paper still suggests that Britain can have its cake and eat it in sector after sector. It states:
“This Government will make no attempt to remain in the EU by the backdoor”.
Nevertheless, it lists a long series of areas where it is confident that the UK can retain close co-operation, from scientific research to aviation, medicines, food safety, chemicals and financial services. That simply will not be possible if we are entirely outside.
The White Paper also pledges to maintain close co-operation on internal security, intelligence and crime, but without accepting judicial oversight of such sensitive issues. That will not be possible either.
On foreign policy, the White Paper repeats the meaningless phrase that we are,
“leaving the EU, not leaving Europe”—
a phrase repeated by the Leader of the House yet again today—and suggests that we will continue to participate in EU military and civilian missions “across the globe”, through the EU’s back door, no doubt.
Boris Johnson, meanwhile, is making speeches in India and the Gulf promising that an increasing proportion of our Armed Forces will in future be deployed east of Suez, as far away from Europe as possible, and last week he was in the Gambia proclaiming the revival of the Commonwealth while the Canadian Prime Minister was visiting Brussels and Strasbourg to celebrate Canada’s trade agreement with the European Union. The Prime Minister says that we must be a world power but that none of us must be citizens of that world. I cannot recall a point in my lifetime when British foreign policy has been as incoherent as it is today.
This has the potential for a train crash, so the House should give the Government a qualified and conditional authority to proceed with negotiations to leave, as the amendments we will discuss in Committee propose.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate (UKIP)
My Lords, the referendum was clear: vote remain or vote leave. The previous Prime Minster said that if the vote was to leave, he would exercise Article 50 the next Monday and we would not be having this debate. Both Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne also said that if we voted to leave, we would also leave the single market.
As we all know, the turnout in the referendum was 72%, which was a record. The leave majority was 1.4 million, a substantial figure. To put that into perspective, if at the last election in the most marginal Conservative constituencies 8,000 voters had voted for the runner-up instead, the Conservatives would have lost 15 seats. Those asking for a second referendum should perhaps be asking for a re-run of the last election.
The referendum was a clear political commitment from the UK Government to act on the referendum result. The Conservative manifesto said:
“We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome”.
Those of us who were in the majority in the referendum should thank Mr Cameron for bringing about our departure from the EU—even though he did it by mistake.
The Prime Minister, Mrs May, should be congratulated on honouring this commitment. She also said that we would leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Why, therefore, has the UK’s signature to the unified patent court agreement—when this agreement is subject to the European Court of Justice—been put down by the Government as a negative statutory instrument, which would therefore be under the radar? That means that unless an MP objected—fortunately, one did—it would have automatically gone through. I would be most grateful if the Minister let us have an answer to that question in due course.
Will we be subject to the European arrest warrant? At present, all British citizens on British soil may be subject to unevidenced arrest warrants issued by any judicial authority in Europe. The charges may be completely fictitious or based on the flimsiest of clues. No evidence is provided and no British court is allowed to ask to see any evidence. This has led to innocent British citizens being seized by British police under orders from continental authorities. In Greece, Express Newspapers, of which I was chairman, was convicted of criminal libel without even knowing that there was a court case going on. Fortunately, I was not arrested and have not been arrested since. These citizens have waited in foreign prisons, sometimes for months, with no right to a public hearing, while their cases are investigated.
Do we really want to remain in the EU for the next two years? Is it worth the risk? Even the poor old International Monetary Fund, which gets practically every forecast wrong—but maybe not this time—says that Greece’s debts are on an explosive path and the IMF appears unwilling to fund further bailouts. Professor Otmar Issing, the ECB’s first chief economist, said recently that the ECB is becoming dangerously overextended and that,
“one day, the house of cards will collapse”.
He said that,
“the Stability and Growth Pact has more or less failed”,
and that,
“the no bail-out clause is violated every day”.
The ECB holds more than €1 trillion of bonds bought at artificially low or negative yields.
In the light of the parlous state of the Italian economy, the general and increasing discontent of voters in the EU, the terrible levels of youth unemployment in Greece, Italy and Spain, the vulnerability of the German banking system, in particular to all their loans to the southern members, and the crowning glory of Mr Verhofstadt, who recently said that we, the UK, are,
“rats leaving a sinking ship”,
are we not better off leaving quickly, rather than seeking to negotiate? We are serving notice under Article 50 so we can try to negotiate the terms of our future relationship with the EU. If we do so, the EU can drag this out at least until the two-year limit expires. The Government can try for all the best reasons, which one may admire, to negotiate, but to get agreement from all 27 countries will be impossible, let alone from the European Parliament. It would have been better to bite the bullet and get out before the house of cards comes tumbling down.
There are a few main priorities, of which I am sure we are all aware. We should convert all EU legislation into UK law and then amend or reform it as a matter of urgency. We should resolve that existing EU residents can remain in the UK. We should have our own fisheries policy in UK waters. We cannot join the EEA as we have ruled out free movement. We should seek to trade freely with the EU 27 as at present, or go to WTO rates for both sides; or, if the EU 27 do not agree, become a free-trade, low-tax area.
There are many other areas to consider, but we will have opened up our country to some 160 other countries in more rapidly expanding areas of the world, including the Commonwealth, which has stayed with us through thick and thin. As the President of the European Parliament said:
“The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate”.
Well, they have decided. This House should now accept the Bill as presented to it by the elected House and not seek to tie the Government’s negotiating hand.
Lord Hill of Oareford (Con)
My Lords, since I stood down as European Commissioner back in the summer, I have had a self-denying ordinance on speaking about Europe in this House. The bad news is that today I have broken my self-denying ordinance, but I do not intend to do it too often.
I did not feel that I could sit out this debate without saying something about what seems to be missing almost altogether in many of our discussions about Brexit: the views of our European neighbours. Sometimes it seems that the debate about Brexit is one that only we Brits are allowed take part in and that, once we have sorted out our internal disagreements between leavers and remainers, all we have to do is present our demands to the European Union and it can take it or leave it.
We are not going to be able to proceed by diktat; it is going to be a negotiation. So I want to look at this Bill from the point of view of our European partners and what we need to do if we want a successful negotiation. First, they need to be able to trust the British side to be clear and consistent. They need to know that what our negotiators say our negotiators can deliver. They cannot sit there thinking that at any point the timing or the content might change, or indeed that the whole thing might be put to a second referendum.
Getting 27 countries to agree a common position is going to be hard enough, but how can they be expected to negotiate if the British Government have to say that they cannot undertake to deliver what they have negotiated because the British Parliament or the British people might vote against some or all the details at a later stage? That seems simply impossible from a practical point of view.
There is another crucial point that, however we voted, we have to take into account. The rest of Europe is not sitting there desperate to take us back. They certainly wanted us to stay, but they have now accepted that we have voted to leave. Their priority is to work out their own future at 27 and not to sit there putting everything on hold, hoping that one day the phone will ring and it will be the British Foreign Secretary saying, “Sorry, we’d like a different offer” or “Sorry, we’d like to come back after all”. Businesses here in Britain are also not sitting here just waiting for something to turn up. Every day, the facts on the ground are changing as they make their investment decisions and plan ahead. Their timescales and their shareholders will not permit a debating-house approach.
I know that most of us here want to remain on the best possible terms with the rest of Europe once we have left: to co-operate on defence and security to keep Europe secure; to continue to trade together to keep Europe prosperous; to collaborate on research and on science; to encourage our young people to learn from each other and to work together; and to have open minds even if we do not have open borders.
To increase the chances of this happening and to avoid the dangers of a mutually damaging political crash, we need to have a grown-up negotiation. That means that we also need to think carefully about the language that we use in this debate. The ludicrously polarised nature of our political and media debate and the chronically debased nature of our language, where everything is either a catastrophe or a liberation, are obstacles to working out not only how to overcome the challenges that we will face on leaving but how to make the most of the new opportunities that will also open up.
I believe that we need a political climate that is far more reasoned, calm and rational if we are to help bring the country together and lead it through the period ahead. That is why we need to be thinking more about how we can bring remainers and leavers together instead of constantly looking to drive wedges between us. We need to talk more about the things that bring us together with our European neighbours, rather than the things that drive us apart. Instead of endlessly rerunning the referendum debate, we need to spend much more time thinking constructively about our future. If that is not a job description for your Lordships’ House, I do not know what is.
I loved being Leader of this House. I saw how important it was that we should be different from the other place, with a different voice and a different set of experiences. I saw very clearly the contribution that we make to improving legislation and I had no hesitation in pointing out to my colleagues in the other place our right to perform that role, to scrutinise Ministers and ask them to think again. However, the truth is that the rest of Europe wants to get on with its post-referendum life, business wants to be able to get on with its post-referendum life and so, I gently suggest, do we.
Lord Mandelson (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and his very intelligent contribution to this debate, but I want, first, to make a remark about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hague. Contrary to what he said today, the noble Lord believes that we should stay just,
“one step short of the single market”.
I know this because he wrote it. He could therefore not possibly agree, in my view, with the Government’s present approach.
George Osborne was right when he said that the Government are being driven by politics not economics in their approach to Brexit. This is what has changed since the noble Lord wrote his original article. That is why the Government can contemplate Brexit at any cost: the economics are secondary; the trade is secondary; the investment and the jobs are secondary. What matters instead is assuaging the ideologues. Herein lies the danger for the country: the Government have lost their sense of perspective in this matter. The Prime Minister is terrified of looking less than full-hearted, so she is overcompensating. Debate is discouraged in case it gives the impression of being faint-hearted. Critics are attacked in case their arguments catch on.
As is well known, I was a remainer: not, I might say, because of my pension rights but because I am a patriot—a patriot rather than a nationalist. That is why I think that the approach the Government have chosen to take to Brexit is wrong. Instead of saying, “We are leaving the European Union but want the closest possible relationship with the European Union” and meaning it, the Government have decided that we are not just out of the European Union, but fully out of the entirety of the single market and the customs union as well. We do not want to have anything to do with one single bit of it, as Mrs May wrote in her article on Friday. In other words, to all intents and purposes we are going to be out of Europe altogether and we will be the worse for that as a country.
I can tell noble Lords that our former EU partners have heard the Government loud and clear. I travel on the continent still: the people with whom we are going to negotiate have got the message that we want clean out of the place. This cannot avoid having consequences in the negotiations.
However, the most important point, and the main point I want to make in this debate, is that this is not what a lot of leave supporters backed when they voted in the referendum. Yes, they wanted to leave the European Union but they did not want to turn Britain into a poorer, politically isolated offshore tax haven without reach or influence in the world. Once they see the consequences, they may—I stress may—want to think again about the outcome of the Government’s chosen path, and Parliament’s job will be to reflect that change of view and create the means of expressing it.
I will conclude by saying one thing about trade, and I have been a Trade Secretary at home, as well as a Trade Commissioner in Europe. The Government can say they want a comprehensive trade agreement to give us,
“the exact same benefits as we have”,—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/17; col. 169.]
as David Davis said in the other place some weeks ago, but unless we comply with Europe’s market rules and accept its common product standards and the regulation of services that it prescribes, we will not have the same trade. We will not have the equal benefits, and to say otherwise is a fraud on the public. We can pay for access—and no doubt we will have to pay through the nose for this—but it will not bring the same volume of trade or the same rights, and we will not have the same means of enforcing those rights in our trade in Europe.
That is why, when all this becomes apparent—it having been carefully obscured in the referendum—the political circumstances will change and so might people’s minds. We cannot foretell exactly what the context will be in 18 months’ or two years’ time but I believe, and I hope noble Lords will agree, that we cannot simply consign Britain’s economic future to this headlong rush towards Brexit at any cost. We have a responsibility not to next year’s growth figures or inflation figures but to the prosperity of our country for decades to come.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, in this debate. This is the most important issue that this House has debated in a generation. Yet there are voices out there who say that we should just get on with it and vote the legislation through unamended so as not to frustrate the will of the people. Many of us believe that we are about to make our biggest foreign policy mistake in decades, so just getting on with it and voting it through is not an option. As my noble friend Lord Newby eloquently asserted, we cannot and should not stay silent simply because the leave campaign won. That would be just as true even if it had won by a substantial majority.
I believe that the economic consequences of our leaving the European Union will be deep and lasting, but I fear that the most serious consequences will be for Europe and Britain’s place in the world. At a turbulent and dangerous time, we threaten to undermine our closest allies, who share our commitment to democracy, internationalism, the rule of law and human rights. We face an isolationist and protectionist America, led by a President who chooses to govern by Twitter, with scant regard to facts or principles, intent on jettisoning decades of carefully honed international policy that made America a worthy and safe leader of the free world.
In the Middle East we face ever-worsening violence, barbarity and terrorism, with little hope of reprieve. The refugee crisis in Europe, which is a consequence, cries out for a negotiated solution that combines humanity with pragmatism. We must deal with a dangerously resurgent Russia and a powerful and increasingly assertive China. Globally, we face the existential threat of climate change on which, in Paris, with Europe’s lead, we were making progress until President Trump changed America’s direction. Our leaving the EU threatens future European co-operation. Worse still, it strengthens and emboldens the fissiparous forces seeking to pull Europe apart—in France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, the Netherlands and elsewhere. Already, the referendum decision drives our Prime Minister to a weak and almost needy dependence on Trump’s America and Erdogan’s Turkey. The duty of this House is to mitigate the damage.
We are now asked to pass a Bill to set this process in train, and upon the basis that our Article 50 notice will be irrevocable unilaterally—although, as Andrew Marr pointed out to Liz Truss yesterday, that is a legal not a political question and one that is unclear and undetermined. Yet the Government want to deny us all, people and Parliament, the right to decide whether we still wish to leave when the negotiations are concluded. Where is the sense, the political courage or the respect for parliamentary sovereignty in that approach? So we will seek to amend the Bill to let Parliament and the people decide on the final deal before we leave, and with the option of remaining still clearly open.
The Government’s plans were eventually spelt out in Mrs May’s 12-point 17 January speech: no to the single market, despite the Conservatives’ manifesto commitment; no to the customs union; no to Euratom. And all, I suggest, because of two unrealistic and obsessive illusions: first, that our leaving will cut immigration and that doing so will benefit this nation; and, secondly, that it will win us freedom from the Court of Justice of the European Union.
On immigration, no one can say how far it may fall, but what we do know is that our economy, our universities, our research and development, our health service, our cultural life and our soft power all depend to a large extent on it. Already, the threat of our leaving the European Union is damaging confidence.
On the European Court of Justice, the Government’s position borders on the absurd. The court provides an effective and essential system of resolving disputes about the EU treaties and legislation. The Government promise free and frictionless UK-EU trade, which means British exporters of goods and services meeting EU standards. We will have no say in setting those standards, but in determining whether they are met the CJEU will be the final arbiter.
We are told that the agreement,
“may take in elements of current single market arrangements”.
The Government promise close collaboration in science and innovation. They recognise that our arrangements for civil jurisdiction and for the recognition and enforcement of judgments under the Brussels and Lugano regime enable our commercial law to function. Energy, transport, communications, the many EU agencies, cross-border environmental protection, digital security and co-operation all depend on EU regulation. Why should our European partners agree to abandon the CJEU for some inferior alternative to resolve disputes? The White Paper sets out in an annexe a medley of other dispute resolution mechanisms, but this is an inadequate and meaningless response to the problem. Like the rest of the Government’s ill-thought out approach to Brexit, it does the Government no credit.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I was a strong remainer and at times I still cannot believe that the result went the other way, but, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I am a believer in democracy and I accept the result. In accepting the result, I, like him, now want to get on with it so that I can begin to influence the legislation that will come to get the best deal for the United Kingdom. It is one of those areas that I shall speak about today.
The Prime Minister identified science and innovation as one of her 12 priority areas in the forthcoming Brexit negotiations. The Prime Minister is right to do so. Science is a global endeavour, and the UK’s collaborative attitude and pre-eminence in science are the reasons why significant numbers of scientists in the UK are from overseas, including many from non-British EU countries. Some have stayed and have even achieved Nobel prizes, such as Professor Geim and Professor Novoselov in Manchester, who won the Nobel prize for graphene, and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, the current president of the Royal Society, who won a Nobel prize while working at the LMB of the MRC. Those are just two examples of Nobel prizes.
The UK is a popular place for talented scientists, certainly in the area of life sciences, which I am most familiar with. To continue to attract to the UK the finest scientists from EU countries, we need to address three issues. The first issue is that those scientists who are already here should have peace of mind about staying and working in the UK beyond Brexit. We must also convey to those currently thinking of applying for posts in the United Kingdom that they can do so with confidence that their future is safe in the United Kingdom and that they should feel welcome. We appear at times to be giving mixed messages to those who are here and those who wish to come. They get the feeling that they will be bargaining chips in our negotiations, and I hope we can alleviate that anxiety.
I shall give an example of the numbers of life scientists working here. I shall use as an example the Francis Crick Institute, which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in November 2016. It is Europe’s largest biomedical research institute under one roof and 1,500 scientists will work there soon. Of the 800 scientists who are already there, 56% of post-doc scientists—the ones who do most of the work—are from non-UK EU countries. Most of them have done their training in the United Kingdom. Forty-four percent of the lab-based staff and 30% of all staff are from EU countries. The number of EU scientists in other universities is similar. In my university, there are 350 scientists working in life sciences and we have 1,000 students.
On the other hand, there are concerns. For instance, the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, our world-class centre for genomic studies, saw a drop of nearly 50% in applications from PhD students from EU countries. If we are to continue to maintain the flow of scientific talent from EU countries and countries outside the EU, we need an immigration policy that makes it simple for scientists and technicians to come to the United Kingdom. In my view, it is unnecessary to cap the numbers of highly skilled people whom we need to come to the United Kingdom.
The second issue I shall highlight is the need for the UK to have continued access to funding from and collaboration with the European Research Council. Funding and participation allow worldwide collaboration with the best scientists in the world. While access to funding from the European Research Council and the Horizon 2020 programme is important, the opportunity of collaboration with scientists worldwide is the important point. The European area produces one-third of the world’s research output, and we contribute to that considerably. It is not surprising that other European countries are already inviting our top scientists to relocate to their universities, for example in France, so that they can apply for funding and collaboration.
The third important area relates to aligning UK regulation with EU regulation. The example I give is the new appraisal system under the EU clinical trials regulation. We need access for our pharma industry, our scientists and our biotech industries to the important IT infrastructure without which we cannot share the information. If we do not have that access, we ourselves will be too small when it comes to the informatics required to conduct clinical trials.
For these and other reasons, I hope that in the negotiations that we will enter into soon the issue of EU scientists coming to work here, our ability to access funding and collaboration and our ability to access IT infrastructure will be early negotiating points.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, first, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register, in particular as a partner in the international commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft and as chairman of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association.
I join many other speakers in congratulating the Government on bringing before us such a short and simple Bill. Whether we like it or not, on 23 June last year the people of the United Kingdom voted on a single, simple proposition and made their decision. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that it was not just an expression of view, and I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that I am not sure where he got the word “quixotic” from; the decision had nothing to do with tilting at windmills or Don Quixote. Perhaps he was just expressing an anacoluthon. It is entirely appropriate that Parliament should respect the decision in the clearest possible terms. I also applaud the decision to convert the body of existing EU law into domestic law, which is by far the best way, in the Government’s own phrase, of “providing certainty and clarity” at a time of great uncertainty and obscurity.
Like many others in the Chamber, throughout my political career I have always been an advocate of closer co-operation among the Governments and peoples of Europe, but it saddens me to say that the European Union simply failed to adapt to the complex, rapidly shifting challenges of what I describe as the new world order. Last year’s referendum exposed the inherent conflict between global aspirations and domestic fears. For many, globalisation has created a sense of near panic and of a loss of control, and it was powerful, simple, powerfully simple arguments about regaining control that narrowly won the day on 23 June last.
The Government’s White Paper speaks of an “outward-looking” nation. I believe that attitude, that policy and that philosophy can heal the wounds left by the referendum and re-establish “One Nation”. Our intuition and surely our reason combine in warning us that, while “Island Britain” must always be a physical reality, it can never again be a geopolitical reality. That is why I very much welcome the title of the Government’s White Paper—The United Kingdom’s Exit from and New Partnership with the European Union—and its consistent tone of grown-up, hard-baked and thoroughly considered realism about where we stand. Of course the precise nature of this new partnership needs to be fleshed out, but it will surely be founded upon what we in the United Kingdom can uniquely offer to the world.
The White Paper also recognises that the UK is one of only two global full-service financial centres, and the only one in Europe. Over 75% of the EU 27’s capital market business is conducted through the United Kingdom. Our insurance sector—the sector I know best—has in my view no equal anywhere in the world. The expertise we possess here is in no hurry to emigrate, but we must ensure, through a positive approach to mutual market access, that it is not forced to go elsewhere in order to carry on trading. I also believe we lead the world in our independent legal profession, our independent judiciary and the concept of the rule of law. I join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in warmly applauding the judgment of the Supreme Court. Whether you read the consenting judgments or the dissenting ones, it reads like one of the great judgments of all time, and I commend it to colleagues.
The closing section of the White Paper contains the compelling confirmation that, in the words of the Prime Minister,
“the British people voted to leave the EU, but they did not vote to leave Europe”.
I respect the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. How long ago was it that he was chairman of the Young European Left and I was chairman of the Conservative Group for Europe?
Lord Hunt of Wirral
However, we have to move into this new world, and we must do so in a positive frame of mind. In that spirit, I was delighted to note a commitment to negotiating,
“a phased process of implementation … This would give businesses and individuals enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements”.
That again underlines why it is so overwhelmingly in our national interest that these negotiations should be successfully concluded within the two-year timeframe set for them. I have every confidence that outcome can and will be achieved, and we in this House have a responsibility to help. The last thing we should do is to break the Prime Minister’s bat just when we most need her to go out and play the innings of her life for her country, and complicating amendments to the Bill would do just that.
In my view, the Prime Minister deserves our full confidence. That is why, on the basis of this short, crisp Bill and the broad assurances and sound common sense of the White Paper, I believe the Prime Minister will be set fair to negotiate not only for our exit from the European Union but also for the best possible new strategic partnership with our close allies, colleagues and friends on the continent—our continent—of Europe.
Baroness Jowell (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I only wish I could share his optimism. I shall make some short observations on process—both the democratic process and negotiation with the EU.
As has been said, before today a mandate was given in the referendum by a narrow majority comprising 37% of the electorate. This has left the country deeply divided but it has been overwhelmingly endorsed in the elected other place, and our role in this appointed House is, within that framework, to secure the best possible outcome in these perilous circumstances for our country.
As has been well said, the referendum was a black and white question that invited a technicolour answer. Many paths led to “No”, but I have to say that for me as an elected Member of the other place, in 20 years of weekly surgeries and countless doorstep meetings, the issue of Europe never once arose. All sorts of concrete issues did, but never Europe. So we should not delude ourselves that leaving the EU will for one moment mend all that needs mending in our society—in particular, the sense for many of being left behind and facing a frightening pace of change, locked out of the opportunities in our globalised economy and often feeling threatened by them. It was therefore not surprising when subsequent social surveys showed that immigration was in fact an issue that served, for significant numbers of people, as a proxy for their other fears about their lives.
In areas of steep recent growth in the immigrant population, the impact of immigration was obviously the issue, but let us recognise that it was also often the peg on which other concerns—just as real—were hung. It has now been made a more central issue even than the well-being of our economy and other vital national interests which rest on our membership of the European Union, with the consequence that we have to attend, cap in hand, on the most unpredictable US Administration in living memory.
To turn to the negotiation process, the Government have damaged the national interest by throwing away their cards in the first two rounds of this process: first, by accepting that Article 50 should be triggered early, as the EU requested, rather than treating that issue as one to negotiate about to our national advantage; and secondly, and perhaps more seriously, by declaring at the outset our intention to leave both the single market and the customs union. How much better it would have been to offer other members of the European Union a choice: make reasonable and real changes to the right of free movement, such as would satisfy most of those who voted to leave, and we will stay in the single market and the customs union; or deny even that, and you will force us out.
This makes the need for proper parliamentary engagement even more urgent if we are to get this process back on track, remembering the important part that the Supreme Court played in getting Parliament engaged in the first place. We all know that it is often more effective to negotiate if you do so as the agent of a powerful principal. Parliament—our Parliament—should be that powerful principal, and it must make clear what is and what is not acceptable to it: its own red lines. The Prime Minister should realise that that would only fortify her and her team.
At the very least, therefore, as the lead letter in the Times today suggests, Parliament must have the right to determine what happens if negotiations break down or if it considers that the terms arrived at are not in the national interest. We are, after all, a parliamentary and a representative democracy.
As we stand, therefore, two of our limited quids have been given away in exchange for no EU quos. It is not a good start, but there is a way back, if Parliament asserts itself and the Prime Minister recognises the strength that Parliament can give her in delivering the best available for our country and its people.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I am the 16th speaker in this debate, and I am already reminded of the explanation why the conventions of the Republican and Democrat parties in the United States last for four days, when two would be sufficient. The answer is that because usually, after two days, everything has been said but not everyone has said it. By the time we come to close of play tomorrow evening, that may be even more obvious.
In a moment or two, I shall talk about the role of your Lordships in this most serious matter, but before I do that, I support the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the position of EU nationals living in the United Kingdom. It is extraordinary that the Government have not yet made any concession in respect of their future. It is extraordinary that they have not recognised that those citizens are an essential part of our economy and, indeed, of our academic life. It is extraordinary that they have not accepted that they are husbands and wives, mothers and fathers of United Kingdom citizens. Are we really and truly contemplating even the remote possibility that we will be prepared to start knocking on their doors, whether at midnight or midday, expelling them from the United Kingdom? The fact is—in a debate in which we have referred to public opinion—all tests of public opinion say that these individuals are entitled to the protection that so many of your Lordships argued for in this House.
The central question for me and for others is: what is our role in this most difficult and complicated issue? Is it to accept without demur the Bill before us, and indeed to put aside the very idea of amendment? Some have exhorted and encouraged us, and even attempted to bully us into doing so. But I rather thought, when I had the privilege of being introduced to your Lordships’ House, that I was expected to use my judgment and experience and to exercise responsibility. In the circumstances in which we meet today, are not these qualities as important now as they have ever been?
I do not argue for a return of the campaign, but it would be wise to take account—to be entitled or even required to take account—of the changes in circumstances since 23 June. So far, no one has mentioned that the value of the pound has depreciated by 20%. Those who wanted us to leave the European Union did not argue that from the platform of the bus they chartered. It will not be long before that depreciation is followed by inflation and then, of course, by an increase in interest rates, at a time when personal debt in the United Kingdom is as great as it was on the eve of the credit crunch of 2008.
We should look at some of the trade deals that have been talked about in theory, if not so far in practice. We have not heard much about Australia recently but the Australians said yesterday that they were open to a trade deal with the United Kingdom. They pointed out that they wanted to increase access to the United Kingdom for their citizens. When India said that they were concerned to have a trade deal with the United Kingdom, they said exactly the same. I do not think that anyone ever thought about that in the course of the campaign.
Now, of course, we are committed to the President of the United States who, to put it at its most charitable, can only be described as mercurial. We have no idea—and perhaps neither has he—what sort of concessions the great deal-maker will demand of us before a successful agreement is entered into between the United Kingdom and the United States. It is even possible that we will have to deal with chickens treated with chlorine and cattle raised on hormones. No one discussed that, and no one had discussed it in any detail as a possible consequence of tying ourselves to an Administration who, if I may say so, are more eccentric so far than any I can ever remember.
Now we know the answer to the riddle: Brexit means Brexit. It is summed up in the expression, “Better no deal than a deal thought to be poor”. We do not yet know what a red, white and blue Brexit will mean, but I hope it is not an excuse for the kind of jingoism from time to time exhibited by the Foreign Secretary. My point is this: what if, at the critical moment of departure, the world has changed and public opinion in the United Kingdom has also changed, when it appears that the consequences of leaving will be adverse to our prosperity, trade and future? Is it not to be permitted that the public change their mind? Is it not to be permitted that there can be any turning back? Someone used the expression, “No turning back”. It is worth reminding the House of its origin—an expression used by the pro-Thatcherite group formed in the Conservative Party in the 1970s. I have striven and failed to find any such political position in recent history, and there is good reason: Parliament is sovereign and Parliament can change its mind; it frequently does so. The great repeal Bill bears to be a change of mind, yet the public are not to be allowed the same opportunity. Remember, if it goes wrong, who believes that the public will hold up their hands and say, “It was all our fault because we voted for it”? They will say it was the fault of the politicians, and they will be right to do so.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for the thoughtful way in which she introduced this Second Reading debate. She confirmed the constitutional position of your Lordships’ House in having a responsibility to scrutinise and revise legislation and the fact that those simple principles apply to any Bill before your Lordships, including this one. However, I strongly believe that that constitutional duty and that responsibility have to be conducted in the context of this Bill. It has resulted from a referendum, the specific details and question of which were approved by Parliament—both your Lordships’ House and the other place—and put to the people of our country. The people of our country having voted decisively to leave the European Union, their decision was then taken by Her Majesty’s Government to the other place. Members of the other place, as representatives of, and exercising judgment on behalf of the people, concluded that a simple Bill designed to initiate the process of Article 50 and commence the negotiation for our exit from the European Union was the right way to reflect the will of the people. Now that it has come to your Lordships’ House, it is for us to understand that context and determine how we should go about our constitutional duties.
It is often said of surgeons that to be a good surgeon you need to learn how to operate. To be a great surgeon you need to develop judgment and learn when and, in particular, when not to operate. Similar could be said of the work of a legislative Chamber, particularly one of the nature of your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt that we are a very good Chamber and know how to revise legislation. The question is how your Lordships on this occasion exercise their judgment and determine whether the Bill should be amended in large or small part. That is not to say that many of the issues already appearing on the Marshalled List for potential amendment or debate in Committee are not vital. Many of them do indeed need to be addressed. The question is: should they be addressed as part of the Bill? Or will there be other mechanisms resulting from what has already been described in the White Paper, and the fact that your Lordships’ House in the next Session of Parliament will receive the great repeal Bill? These would provide a far greater opportunity not only for debate in your Lordships’ House regarding the very important issues that need to be considered but to reach consensus with the other place on those issues.
If, indeed, that is considered a real opportunity then the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope are very pertinent—a simple and straightforward Bill achieving this first objective is the way forward. Thereafter, your Lordships’ House will have ample opportunity to consider a variety of important issues. They should not be dismissed now for ever but considered in the context of the ability to look at issues of substance relating to our departure from the European Union and to reach consensus with the other place.
There is one further issue that I would be grateful if the Minister would address. It regards the final stage of Article 50, and how Parliament should deal with the agreement reached in the context of the argument already put in the other place and agreed by Her Majesty’s Government that Parliament will have a meaningful say at the end of this process. Is that meaningful contribution to understanding the final stage to be taken in the context of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—that is to say it will be treated as a treaty issue? Under that constitutional anchor, the other place has the ability to delay ratification of any such agreement indefinitely but your Lordship’s House can only give its opinion, with the final say resting with the other place. Or will some other part of the process, and other legislation that will come before Parliament in this two-year period represent the opportunity for a far more accurate, decided and granular review of the final agreement reached, and thereby provide the reassurance that noble Lords are looking for?
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I warmly welcome this important Bill. We now need to be clear about the way ahead. The White Paper, to which my noble friend the Leader of the House referred, states that the Government will seek,
“an ambitious and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement and a new customs agreement”,
with the European Union. It is right that we should offer this—complete free trade with no strings attached—but it is unattainable. That being so, we should waste no time banging our heads against a brick wall. As soon as it is clear that, sadly, our European Union partners will not accept our offer, we should move on. There is nothing to be gained by protracted and doomed negotiations. The worst thing for British business and the British economy is prolonged uncertainty.
Much of the confusion arises from the misconception that what we are about to embark on, once Article 50 has been triggered, is a trade negotiation. As seen by our opposite numbers across the channel—and, as some noble Lords have said, we do not at present take enough account of this—it is nothing of the sort. If it were a trade agreement, like the trade agreements we are currently seeking with countries outside the EU, now that we are free to do so, success would be achieved by virtue of the mutual economic benefit such agreements confer. However, although there would indeed be mutual economic benefit in a trade agreement with the EU, that is not how they see it at all. For them, understandably, this is not about economics: it is a highly political divorce settlement.
In many—probably most—EU countries the political establishment is at present preoccupied with the struggle against the rising popularity of Eurosceptic anti-establishment political movements, some of an unsavoury nature. Our European partners are quite clear that, were the UK to secure a satisfactory agreement, this would give a huge boost to these movements. Indeed, the anti-establishment parties themselves openly recognise this. This is particularly the case in France, which I know best, where the Front National is riding high. French fears will receive sympathy and support from Germany, not least because Alternative für Deutschland is on the rise. Although we may have friends in some of the other, smaller, member countries of the European Union, there is no way that the EU will, collectively, agree the sort of trade deal we are offering which would, in any event, be vetoed by the European Parliament.
In a nutshell, as the White Paper explicitly states, echoing the Prime Minister,
“no deal for the UK is better than a bad deal for the UK”.
However, for the majority of the rest of the EU it is abundantly clear that no deal is better than a good deal—good, that is, for the UK. We have to be realistic: the only common ground, and thus the only practicable outcome, is no trade deal. That is no disaster: there is no greater nonsense than the claim that, in the absence of a trade agreement with the EU, we shall be falling off a cliff edge. There is no cliff edge, for the simple reason that there is no cliff. In the absence of a trade agreement with the EU we shall continue to trade with our former partners, but on WTO terms.
Some noble Lords may be unaware that the UK already does far more trade with the rest of the world than it does with the rest of the EU, and the gap is widening with every year that passes. The overwhelming bulk of our trade with the rest of the world is conducted on WTO terms. Moreover, the minor economic disadvantage of being outside the EU customs union and the so-called single market—a disadvantage which has already been mitigated by the fall in the sterling exchange rate—is greatly outweighed by the non-trade economic benefits of Brexit. First among these is the consequence of the promised great repeal Bill, which will enable us to repeal or amend damaging EU regulations, which is of particular importance to our smaller businesses. I know that the party opposite is concerned that this may adversely affect workers’ rights but less than 10% of the vast corpus of EU regulation concerns workers’ rights. It is the other 90%-plus that needs to be judiciously culled. Then there is the substantial benefit of no longer being required to pay our massive net contribution of getting on for £10 billion a year into the EU coffers—a figure which, were we to remain in the EU, would rise sharply in 2020, when the rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher will come to an end.
I conclude with a brief word about this House, of which I have been a Member for some 25 years. The amendments which have been tabled do not seek to amend the provisions of the Bill but to add to them substantively, and perhaps to delay the Bill. In the unprecedented circumstances in which we find ourselves, were the House to entertain any of these, it would embark on an ill-advised, improper, and fundamentally unconstitutional manoeuvre.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister, who I believe is the best person to lead the Government, has been dealt a very bad hand by her predecessor. He gambled for his party, he staked the country and he lost. The Prime Minister is clearly operating on the basis that the bully Brexiteers are never going to be able to claim that she was a soft and secret remoaner. Therefore, I reckon that when it dawns on her that the route is not a good one for the country, she will be in an impregnable position to take some hard decisions and face the bullies down. We will then see what mettle she is made of. We are not there yet, but in the meantime she has no more right than I to claim that the ballot was anything other than to leave the EU. The voters put a cross on a ballot paper. It was a decision, not a reason.
The White Paper does not fill me with much confidence, either. Paragraph 8.12 states:
“In many cases EU rules are based on global requirements”.
So why are we leaving, as these will not change? Paragraph 9.3 states that,
“the UK’s fastest growing … markets between 2005 and 2014 included South Korea … China … Brazil … and Mexico”.
The EU did not stop us and hold us back, so why are we leaving?
We have to take Brexit far more seriously than we have done the EU in recent years. Therein lies part of the problem. I do not think that there has ever been a genuine attempt by the UK over the years to lead, or play a central role in, the EU. The EU Commission has not been up to the task of leadership, either. It has been rare for member states to send premier league politicians to be commissioners. In the UK in recent times we have descended to sending to the commission politicians without any elected experience, such was the value we gave the EU project. We reap as we sow.
As a former Minister, my personal experience of Michel Barnier is limited, but it is such that I reckon he will run rings round the Cabinet Brexiteers. To my knowledge, the Prime Minister has not yet assembled a UK team comprising the best experienced negotiators on trade and international relations. If she relies on members of the Cabinet, we are sunk. While I am on the Cabinet, I will take no lessons in patriotism from members of the Government who were branded public liars for the fake arguments and false facts that they used last year. That is all on the record.
Central to successful negotiations in peacetime is that those who go to the table should come away with something—not all—that they want. The difference in these Brexit negotiations is that it is in the direct and specific interests of EU member states, the EU Commission and the EU Parliament that any success for the UK is tantamount to encouraging other member states to try something on. Therefore, why should the EU allow any outcome for the UK to be better than the status quo? As such, it is definitely an asymmetrical negotiation. From my experience of Lords EU Sub-Committee B, which to date has done three short inquiries on Brexit, the idea that no deal and leaving on WTO terms is better than a bad deal is an absolute non-starter. In fact, it is far more honest to say that a bad deal is far better than no deal on what the evidence we have to date.
Of course, we have the Bill—I must mention the Bill. We need to trigger Article 50. It is now the only means of finding out the real costs of leaving the EU to put before the British people. Nothing will happen until we have agreed the finances of leaving the EU and, contrary to what has been said, we will not get down to it until after the German elections. The EU Parliament and member states have already said that they want six months at least for ratification. It means that we have a 12-month gap from this October to next October to agree the deal. I do not think that it can be done.
Am I satisfied that Whitehall is working on contingency arrangements in the same way it worked on a possible Brexit? No, I am not. I shall certainly be supporting some of the amendments next week in order to carry out the function of this House, which is occasionally to ask the Commons to think again before it has the final word. My four final words are: I agree with Tony.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, after attempting unconstitutionally to rush to the Article 50 exit without legislative authority, the Government have produced this simple Bill, which is no better than a Motion to approve in legislative clothing, and a White Paper that fails to explain the Government’s strategy or to answer the key political and legal questions.
The Government interpret Article 50 as a trap that, once opened, cannot be closed. But its author, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who I am glad to see in his place, has made it clear that when the Article 50 process is triggered, the UK may continue to remain a member of the EU.
The White Paper—perhaps I should call it the off-White Paper—contains statements worthy of Dr Pangloss, George Orwell and Humpty-Dumpty. It claims that the UK’s constitutional arrangements make us,
“the world’s most successful and enduring multi-nation state”.
Tell that to the Celtic parts of our disunited kingdom. According to the Prime Minister,
“after all the division and discord, the country is coming together”.
That is fake and false news. The referendum and its aftermath have been an agent of fracture, not of healing.
The White Paper says that it sets out,
“how the Great Repeal Bill will ensure that our legislatures and courts will be the final decision makers in our country”.
It does not say how that will be done. The Government say that they will,
“bring an end to the jurisdiction”,
of the Luxembourg court in the UK. They do not say how that will be done.
The Government say that they will continue to work with the EU to preserve UK and European security, and to fight terrorism and uphold justice across Europe. That must mean the European arrest warrant, and EU databases and information exchange systems. They do not explain how that can be done without the supervisory jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—for example, while there are transitional arrangements, or where cross-border issues arise with the Irish Republic. I am so glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, is listening, because he can advise the Minister how to deal with this by way of reply.
Will the British courts be instructed to follow and apply the ECJ’s case law or not? Will that be the ECJ’s existing or future case law? Suppose Mrs Smith claims equal pay under the Equality Act. She wants the Act to be read compatibly with judgments of the ECJ, interpreting EU equality law. After we leave the EU and end the ECJ’s jurisdiction, what will our courts and tribunals do? Will they be permitted to apply the ECJ’s case law? Will that be the law as it stood when we left the EU or developing law? The Government say that they will convert the body of EU law into our domestic legislation and,
“will ensure the continued protection of workers’ rights. This will give certainty and continuity to employees and employers alike, creating stability”.
What do the Government expect our courts and tribunals to do before this statutory conversion happens? What about the effect on rights of parties with pending cases before the ECJ?
The Government treat the advisory referendum as binding and claim its outcome requires them to take us out of Europe willy-nilly, even if they fail to get the deal they want. No deal, they say, is better than a bad deal. However, the White Paper is silent about the political and legal consequences if there is no deal. The Bill needs to make it clear that the UK will leave the EU at the end of the Article 50 process only if and when Parliament has legislated either to approve the terms of a withdrawal agreement or to authorise withdrawal in the absence of any agreement. We need an assurance from the Government that they will not use the rights of our fellow European citizens as a bargaining chip here and abroad.
Despite the Government’s threats, I have no doubt that we in this House will do our constitutional duty and enable the elected House to do theirs. Unless we think again, I regret that our modern destiny will be as an offshore island, semi-detached from Europe—a once-great nation that lost an empire and failed to find a new, modern identity in Europe.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, I should like to refer, first, to my interests in the register, particularly as president of the council of the Institute for Fiscal Studies and as chairman of Frontier Economics. In such a lengthy debate, I want to concentrate on those issues where I believe that I can add something—namely, the economic case and the implications for the Civil Service.
The eminent economic historian Professor Nick Crafts concluded a review of all the evidence on our membership of the EU, saying that the positive effects on competition and trade significantly exceeded the negative effects of the membership fee, the CAP and, indeed, badly designed EU regulation. I stress that this is an analysis of the past, not a forecast. Overall, being in the EU has boosted UK economic growth.
The economic impact of leaving has been less than expected so far, but it is now clear that when we leave we will not have full access to the single market and will have fewer migrants. Therefore, the longer-term effects, once we have left, will be negative—that is, it is likely that the economy will grow more slowly than it would have done had we stayed as a member. Some believe that this will be offset by free-trade deals with non-EU countries. As my former boss the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, will know, I am an unashamed free trader and believe that it will be fairly easy to do deals with countries such as Canada. However, when you look at the facts, it is hard to see how such deals could offset the costs of losing full access to the single market in terms of both zero tariffs and non-tariff barriers, and I worry that future regulations, set only by the EU 27, will worsen our competitive position.
Let us remember that the EU will remain our largest trading partner by some distance and we will not be round the table when those regulations are determined. It is ironic that Brexit is said to have boosted the prospects not of free trade but of President Trump and Madame Le Pen, who both favour protectionism.
It is against that background that Ministers and civil servants will have to negotiate our exit. As far as the Civil Service is concerned, I have every confidence that it will do its utmost to achieve the best possible deal for the UK. However, as my successor has said, it is under huge pressure. The negotiations are extremely complex and I have yet to hear of the Government closing down work to allow civil servants to transfer across to the new tasks. Indeed, that wonderful oxymoron, the great repeal Bill, will keep them and us busy in an effort that will probably leave things exactly as they are. However, negotiating with the EU has been a core competency of civil servants in both the home and the foreign services, and they are very good at it.
I am more concerned about implementation problems. We do not know yet what kinds of customs and immigration changes will emerge but we can be certain that they will involve more complex arrangements than exist at present vis-à-vis the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Hague, mentioned, we have to wait for elections in the EU and then we have to think about the time that will be needed for ratification by EU Parliaments. The time left in which to carry out the negotiations will not be long enough to sort out many of the details, so, believe me, there will be a very long transition period. Therefore, it is important that this House concentrates on some key points that we need to put forward to the Government in amendments, which I hope will not add to the complexity of the negotiations. As someone who for years worked for various Prime Ministers of different parties on the Northern Ireland peace process, and as a proud O’Donnell, I sincerely hope that the final deal will not reintroduce borders between the Republic and Northern Ireland.
Over the years, I have done more than my fair share of negotiations with the EU and I believe that I understand the frustrations of those who want to leave. Too little has been done to ensure that the winners compensate the losers. I also believe that the creation of the euro was an enormous mistake—a triumph of politics over economics that in time may well be reversed. However, I believe that the EU without the UK and without people like the noble Lord, Lord Hill, around the table will be less of a force for good in the world and will be less economically successful, which will damage us directly. I accept that we are on course to leave but we need to strike the best possible bargain for the UK and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, emphasised, maintain the best possible relations with the EU 27.
We should, at the minimum, grandfather the rights of those EU citizens working here at the time of the referendum as a matter of principle. I would also favour Parliament having a genuine vote once a preliminary deal is reached and before it goes for ratification to the EU’s 27 parliaments and a number of sub-parliaments, which is quite likely because the deal will inevitably cover some national competences. The UK Parliament should have a serious role in what the deal should cover. That is what we in this House should aim for with judicious amendments that help us to achieve a better deal for all in this country. The “concession” of a vote which has, as the alternative, departure on WTO rules is no choice at all, and I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, about the impact of that. To be honest, I am very surprised that anyone would think that it was any concession.
This Parliament should get a say before the Walloon parliament, and here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hill. When Monsieur Barnier negotiates, we have no guarantee that the individual EU 27 countries will accept whatever deal he has agreed, because it will be going for ratification to their national and sub-national parliaments. So we would not be putting our negotiators at a disadvantage; we would simply be levelling the playing field.
This negotiation will be much harder than anything I had to deal with—believe me, coalitions and so on are completely straightforward compared with this—so I end by wishing the Minister and his civil servants well in what will be lengthy and complex negotiations. I hope that in this House we can put forward some amendments that will strengthen their hand and get a better deal for all of us.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, in this important debate. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by stating quite simply that I voted to remain for reasons that I still consider valid but with which I will not bore your Lordships this afternoon. As soon as the result of the referendum was declared, I took the view that the decision to leave had been taken and that we should all buckle down and get on with delivering it. That remains my view and it is what I rise up to support.
The Bill we are debating—at once both vital and utterly prosaic—simply starts the clock ticking and lets negotiations begin and, in due course, end. That is its purpose. However, it reaches us with huge momentum behind it. Three years ago the referendum Bill was passed in another place without a single opposing vote at either Second Reading or Third Reading. The referendum asked the United Kingdom electorate whether the United Kingdom should leave or stay in the EU—an important point that I make in passing. The result last June was close but clear cut and, though technically it was advisory, the outcome was reinforced beyond any doubt by the repeated commitment of the Government, both in their 2015 manifesto and throughout the campaign, to implement it. So the Bill before us—overwhelmingly approved at all stages in another place and unamended—should command our respect as well as our scrutiny.
I say that in spite of, not because of, the somewhat crude, ill informed and self-defeating remarks of a few people in other quarters on what our duty in this House should be. The sovereignty of Parliament is not confined to one Chamber.
The Constitution Committee called for the decision to trigger Article 50 to be debated and approved in Parliament. We are pleased that that is happening, albeit by a somewhat circuitous route, and I hope the Government will consider carefully the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, about the approval that is to be sought at the end of negotiations.
We have called in the past for fast-tracking to be justified on the face of such a Bill. That has happened in this case and we welcome it. It is unusual for a Bill with constitutional implications to be fast-tracked, but this Bill’s significance and the political implications driving the timetable have been widely acknowledged. Its clarity and brevity make fast-tracking more palatable and, as long as this exceptional situation sets no precedent on constitutional issues, it should be acceptable to your Lordships.
We in the Constitution Committee sometimes complain on your Lordships’ behalf about long Bills inadequately scrutinised in another place, but that can hardly apply in this case. Indeed, the very brevity of the Bill underlines its singleness of purpose. That is its strength, which we should not seek to undermine. It is concerned simply with the timing of the negotiations—when they start and when they finish—and no more. It is not a skeleton Bill, it is not a Christmas tree Bill and it needs no adornment.
There seems to have been a tendency in recent months for us all to get ahead of ourselves, rushing our fences. Every time more information emerges, the demand comes for still more, ignoring the advances already made and all the debates, statements and committee work now under way, which my noble friend the Leader of the House illustrated in her speech. Of course the issues are many, complex and often interrelated, and as the binary decision of last June translates into a multitude of different issues, each having a separate decision-making process circling around it, we need to work between government and Parliament together to achieve the best Brexit we can.
We also need a little more cool, calm deliberation. That should reveal that a lot of things are beginning to fall into place. The Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech certainly carried things forward and the White Paper was full of information and undertakings that surely render many of the amendments now in contemplation unnecessary. The Lancaster House speech was transformative. It completely reset the dynamic for the forthcoming negotiations. Now, instead of seeming the anxious supplicant, desperately begging to hang on to so many features of that mighty European construct, she has cast us in a new light, determined to break free from that vortex of institutions, rules and regulations, and to come to the table as an unburdened applicant with much to offer in exchange for the new deal that we seek. That approach has already transformed the mindset of the other side and has perhaps begun to level the uneven playing field that we face.
Trade was mentioned with some degree of pessimism across the Floor of this House. As a former Trade Secretary—there are a few of us in this House; indeed, we are two a penny—my experience was that trade negotiations are usually driven by mutual self-interest, whether in a declining Europe or in a growing world of trade. That mutuality can certainly give us much more reason for optimism than has been expressed in some quarters today.
Now, with things beginning to move and clarity emerging, we should focus on the job in hand. Future debates and statements will be needed and will undoubtedly be plentiful, along with much primary legislation. The planned great repeal Bill—or great repeal and re-enactment Bill—especially will raise some uniquely difficult issues, about which the Constitution Committee is preparing a report at present that we hope will be a helpful contribution to the kind of co-operation between government and Parliament that will be needed.
Of more immediate concern, however, is our responsibility to fulfil both our parliamentary role and the declared will of the electorate and to get on with the job of approving this short, simple Bill, free from impediments that might slow its progress, so that the negotiations can begin.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the remain campaign told the people that the decision to remain or to leave was theirs. All of us should respect their democratic decision to leave. If we do not, public disaffection from politics will become a crisis. Those who meditate a second referendum are playing with fire. Besides, the deal will not be a binary constitutional choice appropriate for a referendum but a complex set of policy proposals.
To take back control must mean Parliament asserting its right and duty to invigilate the process of withdrawal and to give or withhold consent—whether by resolution or by legislation—in good time to the Government’s proposals for new terms of our country’s relationship with the EU. The Government were foolish to try to bypass Parliament. It is even more regrettable that they appealed the High Court’s decision, depriving Parliament of proper time to debate this legislation before the March deadline. Ministers from now on should be as candid with Parliament as the state of negotiations permits, while Parliament should not seek to constrain Ministers unduly or jog their elbows.
All of us should be intent on healing the wounds opened up by the referendum. It is no way to reunite the country to introduce new grammar schools, slam the door in the face of child refugees, use EU residents as bargaining chips and threaten to turn Britain into an offshore tax haven.
The two great fears of remainers—that Brexit will be a disaster for liberal values and make our people poorer—are ill-founded. I voted for Brexit precisely because the EU is both undemocratic and failing economically. The twin faults of the democratic deficit and crassly constructed monetary union are fuelling public anger and revolt across Europe.
The structures of the communities created after the war and inherited by today’s EU were intended, if anything, to insulate decision-making from democracy, following the catastrophic perversions of democracy in the 1920s and 1930s. In our time, the democratic deficit is provoking extreme reactions among populations who are aggrieved by the depressed conditions of their lives and feel that they are not effectively represented in the political structures of the EU, and that they are ignored or disdained by unaccountable EU elites.
Democracy has been trampled upon by the hierarchs of the EU. In Greece the Syriza Government, elected on a platform of mitigating austerity, have been coerced by the eurogroup of Finance Ministers, the ECB and the IMF into abandoning their commitments to Greek electors and serious suffering has been inflicted on them. In Italy, the replacement of Berlusconi by a technocrat selected in Brussels, Mario Monti, led to the rise of the Five Star Movement and the defeat of Renzi in the constitutional referendum. The fiscal compact of Merkel and Sarkozy wrecked Hollande’s presidency of France and paved the way for the surge of the Front National. Reaction to an EU perceived as alien, undemocratic and overweening led to the rise of UKIP in Britain.
Outside the EU, we in Britain will be free to make our own policies on immigration, workers’ rights, the countryside—free to legislate on all matters as we judge fit. We will have the opportunity to re-engage our people in a revitalised parliamentary democracy.
The referendum was both a great exercise in democracy and a low point in politics. Both campaigns were conducted without scruple—weaponised disinformation on the one side, alternative facts on the other. No wonder people think politicians are all liars. We need to rehabilitate politics. May we hope that leavers will resolve to appeal to the better, rather than the baser, part of human nature, while remainers will forswear condescension and the identity politics of metropolitan liberalism?
The EU is failing economically as well as democratically. The contractionary bias of the Maastricht criteria, perpetuated with the euro, has condemned the EU to weak growth, low investment and high unemployment. A combination of the global financial crisis, the crisis of the euro and neoliberal orthodoxy has devastated poorer areas and vulnerable social groups in the EU, with mass unemployment among young people in the Mediterranean countries. The protectionist policies of the EU keep prices higher and living standards lower in Europe than they need to be while discouraging innovation and economic dynamism. The single market is a sluggish, declining region of the global economy. It is no safe haven for us and we can flourish outside. Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, said the other day:
“I’m not saying that there aren’t going to be some potholes in the short-term. There are. But if you look beyond those the UK is going to be just fine. Not just OK, but great”.
Since the referendum Apple has taken out a lease on a major new HQ in London.
If the negotiators for the EU truly care about the fortunes of those they should be championing, European workers whose livelihoods depend significantly on trade with the UK, more than they care about a grandiose political project which they fear electors in other European countries may also reject, they will want rapidly to conclude mutually favourable terms of trade with us. Beyond that, we must tackle our productivity inadequacies and seek new export markets, and we must take care to support those who will be most vulnerable during the transition. Blame not Brexit but George Osborne that fiscal austerity is forecast by the IFS to continue for another 10 years.
It amazes me that so many of my noble friends remain enchanted by the EU, apparently blind to its oligarchic character and to the humiliation and impoverishment of many millions of its citizens. The EU has not been the promised land to which Monsieur Delors was to lead us. On the contrary, a long series of directives and treaty amendments has entrenched a neoliberal and financial model of capitalism where once it was hoped that a social market and social democratic model would prevail. The dogma of employability and flexibility has transferred wealth from wage earners to owners of assets. It has been an illusion for the left in Britain to think that it can outflank a Conservative Government by contracting out responsibility for progressive social policy to Brussels. Increasingly, the European left is concluding that the only prospect of taming modern capitalism and averting the social ravages that it causes is at the level of the nation state.
Decent and determined political leadership in post-Brexit Britain will curb the excesses of finance, govern for all the people of the UK, decisively reject racism and insularity, and play a responsible part in the world. The choice will be open to us.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it will come as little surprise to Members of your Lordships’ House that, on 23 June last year, I voted to remain. I am speaking today not to advocate reopening the debate on seeking to remain, the decision having been taken; rather, what I want briefly to reflect on—it is a different voice and a different perspective—is that, in the debate being held today and tomorrow, I believe that only five Members of the House who are to speak in it are part of what the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, has called “Generation X”, those of us who were born in 1969 or later. So the demographic of the speeches is perhaps a little unbalanced. The average age in the United Kingdom is 40, but I do not believe that any of the speakers in this debate are 40 or younger; five of us fall between 40 and 50. So the demographic is somewhat different from that of the United Kingdom where the majority of people of my age and younger voted to remain. These are people who cannot remember life before the United Kingdom became part of the European Union. They believed that their future was as part of the European Union and their identity is European at least as much as it was British. They felt that our future was as part of a mobile European society.
Over recent days and weeks, many people have emailed me and other noble Lords demanding that we should try to thwart Brexit and amend the Bill, and a lot of those calls are coming from people who were disenfranchised in the referendum: EU nationals resident in the United Kingdom and UK nationals resident in the rest of the European Union who had been abroad for more than 15 years. They are citizens who would not, if there were to be a further referendum or a general election before the UK leaves the European Union, be any more enfranchised then than they were last year. There are many people currently living in the United Kingdom whose rights need to be thought about and secured.
In my remaining minutes I want to touch on two key areas: peace and security, and the rights of EU nationals. The former does not feature at all in the 12 principles outlined in the Prime Minister’s speech or in the White Paper. A reference is made to dealing with crime and terrorism, but there is nothing about the defence of the realm, something that as a sovereign country which has sought to “take back control” one might have expected to be important. While I have no intention of tabling an amendment to raise the issue of the European foreign and security policy, I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House that the Government fully intend to do what they have implied by going global, that they are going to work even more closely with other international organisations than they have in the past—the UN, the Commonwealth and NATO and with our erstwhile European partners.
We have an excellent reputation for bilateral and multilateral co-operation. Last week I was in Norway visiting the Royal Marines. Considerable training takes place on a bilateral basis with the Norwegians, the Dutch and the Americans, and that is clearly something we should be doing more of in the future, not less. Yet if inflation and a change in the economy weaken the UK’s economic situation, can the Minister also reassure the House that that it is not going to create a hit on defence? The UK’s global security questions are not going to change because of leaving the European Union, and the situation of Trump and Putin makes European security co-operation more important than it has ever been. Peace was the underlying value of the integration process in the 1950s and 1960s, and for me it was the fundamental reason to vote remain; nothing about the economy changes the importance of that and nothing about voting to leave means that we should do anything to weaken the security of Europe.
One of the things the White Paper does talk about in the first chapter is providing certainty for EU nationals resident in the United Kingdom. That is surely something on which we all agree. For the last six months, Members of your Lordships’ House and Members on the Benches in the other place have been united in their wish that the UK should secure the rights of EU nationals resident in the United Kingdom on the day we voted to leave. However, in recent weeks there seems to have been a shift. The uniting of the country that the Prime Minister has called for really seems to be seen more as a uniting of the Conservative Party. The enthusiasm of those Members on other Benches, who had echoed Members on the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Cross Benches in wanting to secure the rights of EU nationals resident here, seems to have been dimmed in recent weeks. I am sure that the unity of the Conservative Party is important for the Conservative Party, but once this Bill goes through, it would be enormously beneficial to all for certainty to be granted for EU nationals resident in the United Kingdom. That is because our economy relies on them.
We can take the moral leadership. Reciprocity sounds wonderful, but the UK has a bad reputation with our European allies given that we do not always reciprocate. We need to take the lead on this one, because if the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, that no deal is better than a bad deal takes hold, it will mean that at the end of two years the rights of EU nationals will not have been secured in any way. Surely we cannot possibly condone such a situation.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I was a passionate remainer but I will vote to pass this Bill without a moment’s pause for we simply must respect the people’s choice. However, we are woefully underprepared for the gigantic challenges ahead. The White Paper, complete with its correction slip, was shockingly flimsy—as flimsy as the paper it is printed on. There were 300 to 400 bland words on immigration, for instance, and a host of questions about matters such as sectoral impact that should have been answered long ago.
Secondly, we are woefully overoptimistic. We are in a weak, not strong, negotiating position. It is in the EU’s overall economic interest to negotiate a bespoke deal with us that facilitates free trade, but politics will trump economics. Some of the 27 countries on the other side of the table have very different priorities. Most will not want to see us benefit from exit and incentivise future breakaways. Some will put the spoke in the wheel for their own domestic reasons. For example, Spain’s concerns on Gibraltar may affect the multiple freedoms our airlines currently enjoy in Europe, worth a whopping £60 billion a year to the UK economy. Some European countries will be opportunistic and look for advantage. I have a good friend working for the French authorities to facilitate the transfer of financial services from the City to the Île-de-France. I personally know of one major British bank that is actively exploring moving half its workforce out of Britain. The EU 27 represent 44% of UK trade, but we are just 8% of theirs. We need a deal far more than they do, so no one but no one can predict with any confidence at all the outcome of such complex, multiparty negotiations.
Thirdly, we appear woefully blind to the risks we are running. There are three roughly equal trading blocs in the world—North America, Asia and Europe—but trade halves as distance doubles. It is hard to believe that the scope for increasing our trade with the rest of the world—56% of our trade now—will be greater than the damage we risk to the 44% of trade we conduct on our own European doorstep.
We are also poorly positioned economically and politically to navigate these unsettled waters. We have just experienced nearly a decade of, I would suggest, unavoidable austerity. Ten years of flat personal incomes or worse and a creaking, overstretched public sector, accompanied by the biggest surge in immigration in our history, created the sourness and frustration that underlay the 23 June result. Yet, immigration is vital to our economy at every level, whether picking the cauliflowers in Lincolnshire, staffing our care homes or attracting some of the best brains in the world to power our financial service industries. We meddle with all that at our economic peril. Squaring the circle—meeting our economic interests while achieving the political consent of a discombobulated population—is a huge political challenge.
The backdrop to meeting that challenge is grim. The noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, mentioned his role in the IFS. As the IFS’s work demonstrates, it seems highly likely that Brexit will prolong public and private austerity in the UK well beyond 2025—well into a second decade. The mood of the country will become more disgruntled still, with unknown consequences.
We are all in this together now. What the Government must do from here on in is show proper respect for our institutions; involve Parliament meaningfully; unite a nation divided down the middle; be hopeful yet realistic, but not giddily optimistic, about our prospects; and be honest and open with the British people about continuing austerity and the white-water ride ahead.
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute as chair of your European Union Committee. I thank the Leader of the House for her very generous remarks about our work, which I will certainly pass on both to my members and, more importantly, to our very hard-working and excellent staff.
To turn to the matter in hand, I will first outline the committee’s position. Individual members of the committee and its six sub-committees, who total 73 Members of your Lordships’ House, of course have their own personal views on Brexit. Indeed, many of them are speaking today and tomorrow in the debate. But as a committee we made it clear before the referendum last June that it was for the people to decide whether to leave. Our job as a committee is to play our part in ensuring that Brexit is achieved in the most effective way possible.
In seeking to fulfil this objective, the committee has done two major things since the referendum. First, it has been publishing a series of reports on the implications of Brexit for specific policy areas. Six were published on consecutive days before Christmas, another last week, and a series will follow in forthcoming weeks. Some of those reports have already been debated and I hope there will be further opportunities for your Lordships’ House to debate other reports in the weeks to come. Accurate information, analysis, scrutiny and transparency—and, of course, impartiality—are our watchwords. Those are the Government’s and the public’s best allies in making a success of Brexit. I ask the Minister to give us an undertaking that the reports of my committee, and of other committees of your Lordships’ House not necessarily within our family, will be taken genuinely into account as the negotiations get under way.
Secondly, we have consistently stressed the importance of full parliamentary accountability during the negotiations themselves. We all understand by now the principle of “no running commentary”, and as a committee we accept that parliamentary micromanagement of the process would be inappropriate. But neither is mere accountability after the fact sufficient. It is not enough that Parliament will get a vote at the end of the day in early 2019, presented with a “take it or leave it” offer—take the deal, however bad, or take the catastrophic consequences of a forced and disorderly Brexit. Consent must be earned over time and by dialogue, so the Government need to embrace scrutiny and provide a regular, appropriate flow of information to parliamentary committees throughout the negotiations.
To be fair, the Government appear to have conceded this point, though in slightly oblique terms, by offering Parliament at least as much information as is to be made available to the European Parliament, but how much information that will be in practice remains to be seen. We now need specific, concrete commitments. The Government should heed the words of Sir Ivan Rogers in his evidence last month to the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, when he described Brussels as “very leaky”, and said:
“You should all expect an awful lot of this negotiation to be conducted very publicly”.
The Government would be wise to make a virtue of necessity and involve Parliament fully in the process from the outset. To revert to our report, we also argued that both Houses should have an opportunity to approve the Government’s negotiating priorities before Article 50 is triggered. It does not appear that this will now take place. I regret that. It is a missed opportunity and I hope it is not to be the first of many.
The Bill, of course, has just one object: to authorise the Prime Minister to make a notification of withdrawal under Article 50. That objective is of course entirely consistent with the outcome of the referendum. Therefore, whatever my personal views of the outcome, I must support the Bill. As a non-affiliated officeholder, I have not voted in any Division since my appointment, nor will I take part in any votes on individual amendments to this Bill, the merits of which are matters of political judgment. But I repeat: the people of the United Kingdom have spoken and it is incumbent on all of us to play our part to ensure that Brexit is delivered in the most effective way possible. Therefore, as chairman of the European Union Committee, I feel obliged to support the Government in giving effect to the decision taken by the people on 23 June last year. If any material attempt is made to frustrate the Bill, I will vote for the Bill to prevail.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, once Article 50 is invoked, the negotiations will be complex and profound. Already in this debate we have been reminded of that complexity. No one doubts the severity of the pressures which will be exerted on all sides to make sure that particular local interests are safeguarded.
Any negotiation involves compromise, yet it is in the careful use of language, not least today in this Chamber, that so much of the atmosphere in which those negotiations will take place will be dictated. So it is that we want to be careful in the use of our language and the way in which we express deeply held views on Brexit. However, given that background, I wish to make a strong plea at this stage of our debate that the particular concerns of a part of the United Kingdom which by a small majority voted to remain in the European Union should not be overlooked and forgotten.
There have been verbal assurances that those concerns will be watched and safeguarded. Those assurances have been given at different levels: they have been given in the other place and in this Chamber, and they have been welcomed. But inevitably, at this stage they are purely verbal. If I may presume at this stage of the Bill to emphasise the needs that that part of the United Kingdom, which voted to remain, genuinely feels lie within the roots of its future, it is the old theory of the slowest ship dictating the quality of the convoy—and, in this instance, a small part of the United Kingdom being recognised because of its concerns—which contributes to the quality of the democratic process in which this House is involved.
The consequences of Brexit could have more significance for the people of Northern Ireland than for any other part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, those consequences are more profound for the island of Ireland than for any other member state of the European Union. Brexit raises complex and profound questions which go far beyond law and constitutional matters. In the case of the island of Ireland, they bring to the fore the importance of human relationships and historic commercial and non-political alliance, and they focus on the tragedy of so much of the history of that part our kingdom. Speaking from my experience of more than 20 years as the Anglican Primate of All Ireland, I am given strength in drawing the attention of the House to these other issues which cannot be left aside in the important constitutional process in which we are involved.
The history of how the current healthy relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have been achieved is well documented. Many of us in this House have lived in and through those negotiations and episodes. There are some in your Lordships’ House who have made significant contributions to their achievement. Within Northern Ireland, the long journey to true and strong reconciliation between its peoples continues. None of us who have been privileged to be a part of that journey and to try to give some leadership and influence in it needs to be reminded of the risks in any alteration to the sensitive relationships north-south and east-west.
It is tragic that at this decisive moment the collapse of the Northern Ireland Executive has produced a vacuum in the political peace process. We have come a long way on the road to a reconciled and shared community, but we have a long way still to travel. That is where the relevance to us of much of the Brexit debate comes in.
When Article 50 is invoked, it is those people of the United Kingdom living in Northern Ireland who will have the nearest livelihood and interests to the border—not just to the border with the Irish Republic but to that which has become the border between our United Kingdom and the European Union. It is they who will be affected by any new restrictions to that border. It is their lives which will be the most affected by any change in the nature of that border. It is they who will be among the first to experience the consequences of forthcoming negotiations.
As I said, there have been assurances. I hope that, in answering this debate, the Minister will be able to remind the House of the Government’s intention that there can be only an open land border between the United Kingdom which is Northern Ireland and the European Union which is the Republic. I give tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, for the way in which he has answered our concerns, but much more is involved in this issue than a line on the map.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, the supporters of Brexit have been called many things: ignorant, gullible, naive, uneducated, bigoted—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark has added a new one, which is quixotic—and much worse by people who refuse to accept the result of the referendum. I am told that social media are flooded with unending streams of abuse and four-letter words.
I believe that the four-letter word which should concern your Lordships today is duty. It is the duty of this House to consider legislation carefully, to ensure that it meets its objectives and that the drafting is appropriate and, above all—as the Leader pointed out in her excellent opening speech—to respect the primacy of the House of Commons. The Bill before us has been passed unamended and overwhelmingly by the elected House of Commons. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out, the judgment of the Supreme Court required the Government to obtain parliamentary authority for the notification of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50. That is all this Bill is about—nothing more, nothing less. It will achieve that policy objective and nothing more. It is closely drawn and narrow in scope. It is our duty to pass it quickly and without amendment. The leader of the Opposition—by which I mean the leader in the other place—argued for moving Article 50 immediately on the day after the referendum result, and David Cameron had to be restrained from doing the same thing. Yet now we are having this great stramash about doing what the two leaders of the strongest parties in our country wanted to do on the day after the referendum.
Parliament voted overwhelmingly to hold a referendum on our membership of the European Union. The Government spent £9.3 million of our money on sending a leaflet to every household in the country during the campaign. It said,
“The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union … This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide”.
What part of that do those on the Liberal Benches not understand? It is our duty to ensure that that promise is kept and that the democratic decisions of the people and the House of Commons are upheld.
This brings me to the Liberal Democrats. They are opposed to the composition of this House, arguing that it lacks democratic legitimacy. Despite being reduced to a rump of nine Members in the House of Commons, more than 100 of them have landed here like beached whales noisily swimming against the democratic tide. Their hapless leader, Tim Farron, was almost alone, it seems, in welcoming Tony Blair’s ill-judged and embarrassing rallying cry on Friday for people to revolt against the decision taken by the largest number of voters in our history. How galling for Keir Starmer, who carefully and responsibly led Labour in the Commons, and how much more so for the 346 Members of the House of Commons who opposed leaving the EU but who voted for the Bill because they are democrats. They put the supremacy of the democratic mandate ahead of their personal views.
“Education, education, education”—remember that? It was once Tony Blair’s winning soundbite. Cloned from Shakespeare’s “Othello”, the original seems more appropriate today:
“Reputation, reputation, reputation! Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself”.
The Liberals care not if this House loses its reputation. They have the brass neck to boast in the press that they will use this place as a platform to reverse the decisions of the elected Chamber and challenge the people’s verdict in the referendum by calling for a rerun. If Brussels thought the terms of Brexit must be approved in a second referendum, then of course they have every incentive to do their worst for our country. Of course, the country the Liberals—I refuse to call them Liberal Democrats—are fighting for is the European Union and if they damage the standing of this House in the process, so much the better. [Interruption.] The Liberals ask why I refuse to call them Liberal Democrats. It is because they do not support the democratic decision taken by the British people and by the other place, but seek to subvert it.
If the Liberal Democrats’ antics are extraordinary, they have pretty strong competition from the Scottish Nationalists. They won 57 out of 59 seats in Scotland on a platform that decisions that affect Scotland should be made in Scotland. Within a year they have disgraced their supporters by singing the European national anthem in the Chamber of the House of Commons. They have refused to seize the opportunity to bring control of fishing and farming policy back to the Scottish Parliament from Brussels. Can you believe it? Not a single piece of legislation has been introduced to the Scottish Parliament since the election nearly a year ago. The only draft Bill, we are told, is one to hold another independence referendum. Like the Liberals, it seems that the parties which are most enthusiastic about holding referendums are the ones which refuse to accept the results. The party with the largest percentage of supporters voting for Brexit in Scotland was the SNP. More than a million Scots voted to leave the European Union, despite all their political leaders campaigning for remain and encouraging their elected Members who supported Brexit to keep silent. Some MSPs, like Ross Thomson, bravely campaigned for Brexit while others, like Alex Neil, the SNP Member, voted secretly to leave. For the First Minister, 1.6 million matter but a million are an inconvenient truth.
This House has an important part to play in helping our nation to make a success of Brexit, through its many Select Committees, as my noble friend Lord Boswell pointed out, and through the debates that lie ahead. There is expertise here and our reputation for cross-party co-operation and an evidence-based approach to policy is undiminished. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, told us, we should pass the Bill and get on with that task. According to the polls, almost two-thirds of voters want Parliament to do just that. We must not let them down.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, critics ask what right have I, an unelected Peer, to oppose the Bill or even to seek radically to amend it, especially when the Prime Minister is behaving as if she represents only the 52% of citizens who voted to leave. I do not deny that they won, or that the outcome must be respected, but what about the 48% who voted remain? What about Scotland, where independence is threatened, or Northern Ireland, where the peace settlement is threatened? The truth is that the country was split down the middle and it still is. If the Prime Minister were really acting in the national interest, she would be representing remainers, too. She would be pursuing a one-nation Brexit, not a partisan, hard, right-wing Brexit. However, I fully understand and respect that, for many MPs and noble Lords, the vast majority of whom, like I did, campaigned and voted to remain, the Bill is agonising and they feel duty-bound to act in line with the referendum result. However, for me, a one-nation Brexit would, as a minimum, mean protecting jobs and prosperity by remaining in the single market—in line, by the way, with the last Conservative election manifesto—albeit with a deal on movement of labour to and from the EU being linked to having a job, and on stopping or returning those who do not have one.
A one-nation Brexit would also mean guaranteeing a completely open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, with no security checks and no controls, physical or electronic. Otherwise, the peace process could unravel.
Cutting us off from our biggest market, where nearly half our trade is done, will have devastating consequences for the economy, jobs and millions of individual citizens’ lives. The detailed terms of the divorce are likely to be serious. There will be a cost, estimated at between €40 billion and €60 billion, for the UK to fulfil its existing obligations. The future relocation of the two EU institutions located in the UK, the European Banking Authority and the European Medicines Agency, will lead to a direct loss of highly skilled jobs and an exodus of companies located here which value proximity to these agencies, as the Japanese Government have warned.
Failure fully to protect property, contract, pension and residence rights under European Union law, which we, as EU citizens, have acquired, as well as social security, healthcare and mutual recognition of qualifications, could lead to the repatriation of an estimated 1.25 million British migrants from other European Union countries, both retired and working. Financial services, which provide 11% of Treasury revenue and 10% of our GDP, risk losing their “passport” to the EU of regulatory equivalency, already leading to the banks announcing plans to move jobs to rival financial centres, such as Frankfurt, Dublin, Paris or New York. EasyJet has drawn up plans to leave its Luton headquarters and relocate to the continent, as UK-based airlines risk losing access to the EU’s deregulated aviation market after Brexit. The car industry fears crippling tariffs, while the UK aerospace industry, critically including Airbus in Wales, also fears that European contracts may be at risk. These industries are key to maintaining the UK’s tax base and skilled workforce and are crucial to the regional economies where they are based. Is this really the outcome that voters in these vital sectors wanted to see? Surely not. They voted to leave the EU to take control, not to lose control.
Almost universally overlooked is that the right to free movement has never been unconditional, even under current European Union rules. In fact, the UK already has a number of effective tools available to it to manage migration from the EU, if it wishes to do so. Other European Union countries, such as Belgium, send thousands of people back to their own country every year; for example, if they are not in work. Rather than turning our backs on our largest export market in the EU, would not a more constructive approach have been to try to agree a new interpretation of free movement of labour; namely, that this should apply only to the 60% of EU nationals with offers of employment from British employers who need them?
We now learn that if we cannot get the EU trade deal we want, the Government want to jump into what you might describe as a “Trump Brexit” to make Britain a low-tax haven with lower labour and environmental regulation, in an attempt to attract foreign firms once we have left the EU. That would also mean continued shrinking of the state, even more savage cuts in public services and even greater inequality, hitting our poorest and most vulnerable citizens the hardest. That would be a betrayal of almost everything I have fought for in both Houses of Parliament for more than a quarter of a century. Despite our party leader’s three-line Whip to march through the Lobbies with the Conservatives for this Trump Brexit, and as a matter of principle and conscience, I will vote against the Bill if the Government do not accept key cross-party amendments that have been tabled.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, every day we start our deliberations by asking for wisdom and understanding. We pray that our counsels may result in,
“the public wealth, peace and tranquillity of the Realm, and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the same”.
Whether or not we are religious, these objectives should unite us all. Currently this country is very divided and very angry.
When I came to the House of Lords, I knew that I did not represent a geographical constituency. I understood that I was here to represent all the people of the United Kingdom and to do what I judge the right thing according to my conscience. That is what I propose to do. Last time I looked, every Member of this House was equal. His or her opinion was equal and his or her conscience was equal. Last time I looked, it was customary to treat the opinions and consciences of other Members of the House with some civility and respect. I have to say that the speech before last did not do that and did not serve that Member’s cause very well.
Your Lordships’ House has a duty to scrutinise legislation in detail and to ask the Government to think again when they are going in the wrong direction. There is precious little detail in the Bill but I judge that the Government have chosen to take the country in the wrong direction. There is no mandate for it. There is no majority to leave the single market. If we continue along this path, our people will be poorer and our country will be more isolated and less influential in the world. So I will be supporting amendments to protect the rights of citizens of other EU countries who live and work here, to protect our access to the single market and to allow the people of this country to have the last word, for the sake of our unity and democracy. That is what I believe democracy is.
As your Lordships will be aware, I speak for these Benches on health and social care. There are three main healthcare reasons why I believe the Bill should be amended. They boil down to: people, healthcare and Donald Trump. There are tens of thousands of EU citizens working in our health and care system and the Government are using their future, and the future of those they care for, as a pawn in a misguided game of cat and mouse with the other 27 countries. Without them, the staff shortages we are already experiencing will be a lot worse and patients will suffer. 1 am pleased there has been a cross-party outcry from your Lordships about this, so I hope all will vote for an end to that foolishness.
Secondly, the businesses which provide the drugs, medical devices and treatments that British people need will be badly affected by a hard Brexit. That is why I support access to the single market rather than just waving a white flag and not even trying. The pharmaceutical products most of us depend on are developed by research by networks of scientists working together across Europe. These networks are already suffering and the massive EU funding from which they benefit is being put at risk. Clinical trials taking place here in the UK are at risk. UK patients get access to new and cutting-edge treatments because of them. The UK has played an enormous role in the regulation and licensing of medicines for the whole EU. Indeed, much of the expertise is here. It makes no sense to develop our own system. We could lose a lot of that expertise.
Companies will always develop products for big markets where the profits are. Why would they want to develop a product to satisfy the regulations in a market of 68 million people when they could sell to a market of 400 million? Medicine distributors warn of cost increases, decreased access and even shortages. Harmonised regulation is not a burden. It gives us the freedom to sell and the confidence to buy. Why throw it away? Medcare products frequently cross borders in the course of their manufacture, packaging and labelling. Having tariffs imposed on them will increase their costs and decrease their competitiveness. So, for the sake of UK patients and their access to affordable and cutting-edge medicines and treatments, I will be supporting an amendment to give us continued access to the single market and the customs union.
Then there is Donald Trump. Our NHS is probably our most valuable asset. Already a lot of American healthcare companies are sniffing around to see what they can pick up. We all heard what Trump said about trade deals putting America first—America first, not the UK first. So anyone who thinks a trade deal with the USA will not result in a lot of our health services being run by American companies must be completely mad.
Finally, I will be supporting an amendment to ensure the approval of the British people for the deal put before them by the Government. All those who are most affected should have a say, including those who were denied one in the last referendum with its gerrymandered electorate, such as: citizens of other EU countries who live here; British citizens who have lived for many years in other EU countries; and 16 to 18 year-olds whose future study and work opportunities will be damaged by Brexit.
We have a representative Parliament and we are not used to referenda. But perhaps, having ventured into that area, we should have taken a leaf out of the book of the Swiss. Here, our future wealth and well-being are being hijacked by an advisory referendum in which only 37% of a gerrymandered electorate voted for the change. That means that 63% did not. I believe I am here to speak for the 63%, along with all those groups that were not allowed to vote at all. So for those reasons, and, as other noble Lords have mentioned, because times have changed since 23 June, we need a referendum on the final proposals. You cannot start the process with some form of democracy and finish with a stitch-up. The long-term future of the UK and its population is at serious risk and this House must do its duty and ignore bullying threats about its own future.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, during the debate, a number of noble Lords have kindly referred to Northern Ireland. Of course, we are extremely grateful that Members are taking a keen interest. We are the most affected region, I guess, because we have a greater complication than anybody else. Not only that, but because of the profile of our economy—its significant agricultural and food production aspects—it is a bigger deal for us than perhaps for other parts of the country.
At this time the Northern Ireland Executive have massively let the people down. They have become engaged in a war with themselves. They have collapsed. Since 24 June last year, their total written contribution to Her Majesty’s Government has been one letter, of two pages, which was written in August and merely stated the obvious. When the Brexit Secretary of State visited Belfast in September, he had to have two meetings with the two coalition parties. They would not even meet him together. This is a hugely important issue for our people, our businesses and our future yet the behaviour and performance of that Executive has been an absolute disgrace.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that the Scottish Parliament had not produced a single piece of legislation since it was re-elected. We in Northern Ireland can do better than that; we have produced one piece of legislation, the finance Act. No other legislative device has hit the statute book since the elections of last year.
I do not support a physical border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that everything we can possibly do to keep that border open must be done. However, I caution him not to close the door on electronic or other technical mechanisms, because using those could avoid having the physical border that would be a major setback for us all. We have to keep our minds open and look at all the possible methods.
This leads me on to an issue that I have raised with the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bridges—on other occasions when he has given answers in this House. I ask him to give an absolutely clear, definitive guarantee at the close of this debate tomorrow night that there will be no border in the middle of the Irish Sea so that we would not find ourselves, as citizens of the United Kingdom, effectively seeking entrance to our own country when we turn up at Stranraer. I want to be absolutely clear: I will be waiting for that absolute and certain guarantee tomorrow night and, should we be here until 7 o’clock the following morning, I will be here to hear him. If that guarantee is clearly given, it will free us up to look closely with our colleagues in the Irish Republic at how we can fix this. We have had meetings with them and their minds are open. We have to look at all the options. It is not going to be easy but it has to be done, so I hope that the Minister will give me that guarantee.
The other thing which I would caution colleagues about is linking the Belfast agreement to the European exit. I do not doubt that there are political issues involved but there is no legal link. The results of the court case that was held in Belfast and subsequently referred to the Supreme Court are clear. The mentions of the European Union in the agreement are incidental. As one who was privileged to be in those negotiations for more than two years, yes, Europe was mentioned but in the context of the commonality between ourselves and the Republic, and what assistance it could give. I have to put on record that it gave us a special peace fund, which no other part of the European Union had. It is still working and we are very grateful for it. I make it clear that, while there is a political link, there is no legal or constitutional link.
My final point is that, having been part of a very complicated negotiation lasting over two years, I have to say that the expectations of some noble Lords as to how such negotiations can be conducted is somewhat wrong. Up until one hour before those two years of negotiations ended, I could not have said whether there would be a deal. Noble Lords may think that you can put everything out in front of the people you negotiate with and tick the boxes off every quarter, but that is an unrealistic prospect. Ministers have to go in and negotiate.
I assure your Lordships that if we had had to look over our shoulders every five minutes, when we were assailed from all sides by people shouting “Traitors!” and “Lundies!” at us outside the gates, and on top of that say every few weeks what we were discussing then we would never have got an agreement. So please do not believe that you can conduct an international negotiation on such a scale—a much bigger scale than we were involved in—and, at the same time, hog-tie the Ministers. They must be free to negotiate. If they do a good job, fine; if they do a bad job, then we will know and have an opportunity to pass judgment on them. Can your Lordships imagine what the negotiators on the other side of the table would do in those circumstances, knowing that they could cut the ground from under the Ministers negotiating with them? What would you expect them to do? If our opponents had known what our bottom line was on a particular issue, we would have been slaughtered before we even got to a deal.
Members have to be realistic. Whatever people may think, the fact of the matter is that David Cameron looked people in the eye, through the camera, and said, “This is an ‘in or out’ referendum”. We recommended remain because of our particular circumstances but the vote is over. We now have to implement the decision and you cannot do that with your cards face up on the table, because the person on the other side of that table will simply take every advantage. You would have no leverage whatever and simply be humiliated when you came back. We have already seen what could have been done when David Cameron negotiated with Europe. If he had asked for more and Europe had been generous in giving it, we might not be having this debate today.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I should begin by telling the House that I voted to remain in the European Union. I am sure that, as my noble friend Lord Lang said, the House is not remotely interested in my reasons, but they were in fact congruent with the reasons that I attempted to advance from the Dispatch Box. Noble Lords will know, if they have had ministerial experience, that that is not always the case. Other noble Lords may have had better or different reasons for voting to remain. But we know neither the reasons for voting to remain nor the reasons why the majority voted to leave the European Union. We can speculate, of course, that it was to do with immigration or sovereignty, or a dislike of the European Court of Justice. But we do not ask voters to give reasons for their votes, whether in council or parliamentary elections or in a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, clearly has greater insight into voters’ motives than I do.
The referendum Act which I had the privilege of assisting through your Lordships’ House does not contain implementation provisions. What did voters or parliamentarians expect to happen, were the British people to vote to leave the EU? If they had read the Government’s publication of February 2016, The Process for Withdrawing from the European Union, they would have realised that the Prime Minister had indicated clearly that the British people, if they voted to leave, would expect the UK Government to notify the European Council straight away, pursuant to Article 50.
During the passage of that European referendum Bill through your Lordships’ House there were debates, often heated, about the virtues or otherwise of membership of the European Union. A great many amendments were put down, but they were concerned with the franchise—what one might call the rules of engagement in relation to the referendum campaign. All the major parties agreed that there should be a referendum. No parliamentarian put down an amendment spelling out what the consequences of an out vote would be. There was, for example, no amendment on thresholds or the sort of Brexit that would follow—let alone anything about a second referendum.
Following the referendum vote, the Government thought that they could rely on the royal prerogative to trigger Article 50 but decided not to do so immediately. As noble Lords know, there followed a legal challenge. Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that, notwithstanding a resolution of the House of Commons in favour of triggering Article 50, the notice could follow only actual legislation—although the Supreme Court was at pains not to be specific about the form of legislation. One could say that this short Bill before your Lordships’ House represents minimal compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling—but in my view it respects the decision of the court. At paragraph 122 of the Supreme Court’s judgment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, said, in speaking for the majority:
“There is no equivalence between the constitutional importance of a statute, or any other document, and its length or complexity”.
Notwithstanding the interesting observations by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the Bill shows respect for the rule of law and the decision—and, of course, for the independence of the judiciary. After the decision of the Divisional Court there was a lamentable attack on the judges by some of the media. The Government were rather slow to condemn it. I am glad to say that they were much quicker to evince acceptance of the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Why was it important to defend the independence of the judiciary? It was not because of any hypersensitivity on the part of the judges, who are used to robust criticism of their judgments; it is because of the critical importance in the function of the constitution that the Government should show respect for the rule of law. If one needs any illustration of the importance of that principle, one only has to look to the United States of America at this very moment. I should add that I do not suggest for a moment that the role of judges in the constitution does not deserve examination. Indeed, there is an important debate to be had about the proper reach of judicial power—one that is taking place under the auspices of Policy Exchange’s Judicial Power Project. However, there can be no doubt that the Supreme Court acted entirely within its powers in the Gina Miller case and came to a conclusion that was in accordance with the law.
Various noble Lords have put down amendments to the Bill, seeking no doubt to improve the legislation—but on what basis can they reasonably do this? Is it because they are seeking to attribute reasons for the United Kingdom voting to leave which were not in fact provided by the vote? I suspect that the motive is a perfectly worthy one, which is to ensure that the terms of our departure are as satisfactory as, in their view, can be obtained—or, in the case of the Liberal Democrats, that we have an opportunity to think again.
No one on either side of this debate can properly be described as lacking in patriotism. All noble Lords, I am sure, are anxious to ensure the best possible outcome for the United Kingdom—and I do not welcome veiled, or not so veiled, threats to abolish this House if it does not simply acquiesce with the Commons. However, respect for the rule of law and the democratic process drives me to the clear conclusion that we, the unelected House, should pause long and hard before fettering the Government’s undoubted powers to withdraw from the European Union under Article 50.
Rarely do Bills return to the House of Commons without your Lordships having improved them. I am sympathetic to the amendments that concern the rights of EU citizens and the desirability of a so-called meaningful vote after a putative deal has been reached, but I expect to be reassured on these points by my noble friends the Ministers, who will regard these amendments as essentially probing. Our chance to influence matters will come, but we must realise our limitations as the unelected House. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, whose enthusiasm for and experience of the EU is much respected, said in the recent edition of the House magazine that,
“the unelected Lords may again have to pressure the Commons to better represent the people”.
There are so many ways in which I am uneasy with that observation that I think it had better speak for itself. No doubt when the noble Baroness winds up this debate she will be able to enlighten us on the democratic legitimacy of that observation. My present view is that we should send this Bill back to the Commons with neither a word added nor a word subtracted.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the House does not follow that advice. I cannot support this Bill as it stands and in the context in which it is being proposed. I could simply say that as chair of one of those EU sub-committees which the noble Baroness commended earlier for their work, I should maintain a degree of neutrality and abstain—but the reality is that I do not want my name recorded as supporting the removal of my country from a European Union which, for all its imperfections and its failings, is the best hope for peace, prosperity, security and justice on a continent that has been scarred by war and oppression through previous centuries.
However, I agree—who cannot?—that the people have spoken. Not for the first time, I do not agree with them, but I accept that the decision was valid and I do not join some remainers who say that the vote was less valid because of its correlation with age, lack of educational attainment or distance from the M25. It was a valid vote and a clear vote. Indeed, after the vote I counselled some of my colleagues that we should not seek to frustrate the triggering of Article 50, and that the key point would be when the final deal was presented—and it should be presented to Parliament.
I have somewhat modified that view since the Prime Minister’s speech of 17 January. That speech and the apology for a White Paper that followed have frustrated the aim to which I thought the Government were committed of getting the best possible Brexit option, or even of exploring the range of options open to us. I co-chaired the two sub-committees that produced the report Brexit: the Options for Trade. I will make a somewhat more technocratic speech on that report when it comes before the House on 2 March. Suffice it to say for now that the big print is that in the whole range of witnesses from industry, business, academia, the trade unions, consumer groups, lawyers and other professionals, the vast majority argued that the least disruptive and to them the most attractive option for Brexit was retaining, for most purposes, continuing membership of the single market, probably in some form of EEA/EFTA-type deal. Most also argued that to cushion the change for British industry over the period, we would need some continuing engagement, at least in the short term, in the customs union, which would also alleviate the situation in Ireland, which many noble Lords have spoken about.
The 17 January speech slammed the door on both those options, and the White Paper made it even more explicit. It is not this House, the Supreme Court or the remoaners who have forced the Government into a position where they have restricted their options. Of course, it is possible not entirely to blame the Government. Those who were arguing that we needed a plan are probably deceived by what they wished for. What we now have, with the plan in the White Paper, is a rejection of the two most favoured options for British industry and a reduction of the forward strategies to a binary strategy in which we either negotiate—it would be quite a long negotiation—a complex free trade agreement with the EU, with probably unachievable bespoke sectoral agreements within it, or, if we cannot get such a deal, we have no deal and revert to WTO terms. In practice, that means not only with the EU but with most of the rest of the world. That is a terrible option for the United Kingdom, and it was not what was talked about in the heady days of the referendum campaign. Nor was it clear on 24 June or during all those months when we were simply being told that Brexit means Brexit. In fact, none of it was clear until 17 January—but I am afraid that it is clear now.
If this Bill, or something like it, had been put to us last autumn, I would probably have supported it, although I would clearly have pressed for better parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiating process, which we still do not have. We have been told that in order to maintain the confidentiality of the Government’s negotiating position, we should not expect a ball-by-ball commentary. That is fair enough, but in the 17 January speech, the Government in effect announced their negotiating strategy, not to a trusted parliamentary committee but to the world at large. This is not a game of cricket; it is not even a game of chess. It is more akin to joining 27 professional poker players, and before you have even sat down you have thrown away your two best cards and displayed most of your hand to the rest of the world. That is the exact negation of effective negotiation, and I am surprised and shocked that the Government are finding themselves in this position and are asking us, in effect, to endorse it.
I recognise the importance of the migration issue and that migration trumps—if I can use that term—issues of access to the single market. But no attempt has been made to try to get a deal on migration: something between absolute freedom and absolute control. Such a deal could have been possible, but now no longer is.
This House should not ignore the will of the people, and nor should it lightly challenge the elected House—but we are entitled to ask the House of Commons and the Government to think again and to reflect back to them the view of the vast majority of British business that they should not close all options and that we should look at that again. We are entitled to ask them to think again on that, as we are to insist on more effective parliamentary scrutiny.
I probably will not vote for this Bill, but if the burden of opinion in the Lords is to amend it, then none of us should be afraid of so doing because of the threats to abolish or reform this House. None of that cuts much ice with me; for 20 years I have sought the abolition of this House in its present form. But I hope that, for the reputation of this House, those who are more wedded to its present form will not be frightened into bowing down before that threat and failing to amend this Bill effectively.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, like many in your Lordships’ House, I deeply regret the circumstances that have brought us to consideration of the Bill. However, after the tirade from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, against the Liberal Democrats, I am at least reassured that we must be doing something right, and have never been prouder and happier than to be on the opposing side of an argument. Nevertheless, the referendum has happened and I accept that the Government had to carry out its instructions. But they had a choice about how they did so.
The Government could have acted boldly by consulting Parliament immediately and meaningfully, and publishing a Bill six months ago. They could have set out a policy which discharged their duty to negotiate withdrawal, but did so in a manner that took into account the views of the whole nation and gave protection to our economy. They could have acted decisively to reassure EU citizens in the UK, and consequently British citizens in other EU countries, that their rights would be protected. But they did none of that. Instead, they asserted the royal prerogative with the arrogance of a medieval monarch, and fought to prevent Parliament having a role. Instead, they decided to embark on extreme Brexit, exiting not only the EU but the single market and the customs union too—decisions which our current Chancellor warned, just a few short months ago, would be “catastrophic”.
On the crucial issue—the rights of UK citizens in the EU and of EU citizens in the UK—instead of a bold and generous offer, the Government have obfuscated and blustered. They have cast the lives of millions of people as so many chips in a game of poker. In doing so they have squandered good will towards our country, brought fear and uncertainty to millions of our fellow EU citizens and proven—if any further proof were required—how very little the Government understand about the art of negotiation.
I hope we will take the opportunity in Committee and on Report to ask the elected House to think again on some of these matters, including first, on protecting the rights of British citizens resident in other EU countries and EU citizens resident in the UK. The content of the White Paper on the subject is frankly derisory and an insult to the millions of EU and British citizens left uncertain and afraid by Brexit. Secondly, we need to look at how we can protect our economy by keeping the UK in the single market. Finally, we need to look at ensuring that at the end of this process, the British public have the final say on the deal that is brought back.
The Bill we have received from the other place does none of that. Its two short clauses, if passed in their present form, will grant the Executive unqualified and untrammelled power to negotiate an exit deal from the European Union on any terms, however pitiful the deal is for our country, however damaging it is to our economy, however much it strips British and other EU citizens of their existing rights and however much it tears up their lives.
At the end of all this, when the Prime Minister returns with a deal—or perhaps no deal at all—Parliament, if the Bill is passed in its present state, will have no more power in the matter than a meaningless vote on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. As for the public, they will have absolutely no say at all. They will have no say, however ruinous the agreement is for them, however damaging it is to their health services, however devastating it is to their jobs and whatever the cost to them in rising prices and deteriorating living standards. They will not even get the choice of “take it or leave it”—they will just be expected to take it.
So much for all the brave talk of the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. So much for “take back control”. This is what has come of it. Those Brexiteers who so insistently proclaimed the importance of parliamentary sovereignty would surrender it to the Executive without a whimper. Those who agitated year in, year out for the voice of the people to be heard are determined that it must now be silenced for ever. For the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and his colleagues, the people have spoken—they must never be allowed to speak again.
Unless this House is prepared to act, the Government will proceed unhindered on a course of extreme Brexit, for which they have no mandate and which will cause the maximum damage to relations with our European partners, to the economy of our country and to the livelihoods of every single person in it. Most noble Lords know this to be the case. What remains to be seen is whether we are prepared to act—not to frustrate the will of the elected House but to discharge our constitutional duty to ask them to think again and, in doing so, to mitigate the huge political and economic damage of the course of extreme Brexit the Government seem determined to embark upon.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, there is a line of Nietzsche’s that General de Gaulle liked to quote, which is that the state is,
“the coldest of all cold monsters”.
How chilling too can be the state’s artefacts—even its paper ones. For a remainer such as me, these two little light green pages that capture the Bill before us represent the coldest of cold print. Yet I accept the result of the referendum, and I believe that we need now to crack on with the withdrawal negotiation and that the Government should have its statute triggering Article 50. I welcome the assurance from the Lord Privy Seal that the UK Parliament should have its vote on the departure deal, although I expect it will be an interim one in 2019, ahead of the European Parliament.
At the root of my belief that this is the way to proceed is the deal that underpins a parliamentary democracy: raised voices, yes; raised fists, no. For this deal to work, votes must prevail. The referendum was advisory, but its outcome must be respected. If it is not, and we try to caveat it or claw it back, or ask our people to kindly think again, some of them may think that the deal at the core of our open society is at the least questionable. That way lies peril, in a country already beset by a surfeit of uncertainty and no little antagonism.
Europe causes us to fall out among ourselves, as we have already seen today, like no other question. It will continue to do so, I fear, deep into the mid-to-late 2020s, when the final settlement with the European Union will at last be complete. When it is, we might be able to live, work and flourish in a refreshed geopolitical condition, free-trading enthusiastically—and I hope ever more successfully—with the rest of the world. If we can reach this happy point, our falling out over the triggering of Article 50 in the first weeks of 2017 will safely be but the stuff of PhD theses, and the occasional “Where are they now?” column about the leading personalities of the Brexit story in what few national newspapers remain.
The Bill before us drips with historical significance. It is also couched in a special, emotional geography of its own—always a factor, ever since the European question unloosed its destabilising ingredients on an unsuspecting Westminster and Whitehall, when Jean Monnet arrived from Paris out of the blue, bearing a plan for a European Coal and Steel Community in 1950. The Bill before us is a mere 67 words, but how heavy the historical freight that it bears. It is a key element in what will be the fourth of our country’s great geopolitical shifts since 1945. The first was the protracted withdrawal from Empire—from India in 1947 to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe in 1980. The second was joining the European Economic Community in 1973—or “Brentry”, as the Economist rather neatly described it the other day. The third was the ending of the Cold War between 1989 and 1991.
The parallel with disposing of the territorial Empire is, of course, inexact. It too was an intricate business involving protracted negotiations but the timetable was largely, though not wholly, in the hands of British Ministers, and they were usually dealing with but a few nascent nations at a time rather than 27 existing nations with a two-year clock ticking, which is what our negotiators will face in Brussels from the end of March.
However, there was an intriguing symbolism in the Prime Minister’s speech at Lancaster House on 17 January, for she delivered it in the very room where the independence deals with our former colonies had been shaped in the 1950s and 1960s. Her speech contained what I thought was a fascinating passage that I do not think the press picked up. Under the subheading, “A message from Britain to the rest of Europe”, the Prime Minister declared:
“Our political traditions are different. Unlike other European countries, we have no written constitution, but the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the basis of our unwritten constitutional settlement … The public expect to be able to hold their governments to account very directly, and as a result supranational institutions as strong as those created by the European Union sit very uneasily in relation to our political history and way of life”.
I am still trying to make up my mind if this passage reflects a regretful Mrs May suggesting that a divorce was always likely on the grounds of deep incompatibility or if it is a reprise of that traditional British air, “Oh, why can’t Johnny Foreigner be more like us?”. I like to think it is the former.
Our debate today, as we have seen, has an elegiac quality to it. It is not our final farewell to the European Union—that will come with the repealing of the European Communities Act 1972—but it is perhaps a moment to think of those, whether they be parliamentarians, Ministers, civil servants or diplomats, who devoted much of their professional lives to getting us into the European Community in the first place and making our own often very peculiar relationships with it work thereafter, just as other friends of mine have devoted their professional lives to getting us out.
It looks now as if the UK as part of an integrating Europe will, in the long sweep of British history, seem like a 45-year aberration. Still, I salute those who devoted heart, sinew and brain to it for it was a fine, if ultimately doomed, cause. They gave it their all and, in so doing, did the state considerable service.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, when I had the honour to move the humble Address to Her Majesty, I said I believed that this House, when it approached the issue of debating the referendum and its outcome, would show the value of the experience that exists within it and the ability to conduct its debates in a respectful and intelligent manner. Although I appreciate that we are only a fraction of the way through, I am extremely encouraged that so far this has been achieved. I am also extremely encouraged by the amazing ability of people to match the time requirement set down by the Captain of the Honourable Corps of the Gentleman-at-Arms. In general the debate has been pretty well conducted, although I have to say my noble friend Lord Forsyth has an individual style of bridge-building with people who do not agree with him that may not always attract their attention.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who brings huge experience, is a perfect illustration of what this House can contribute. When I heard someone, who I am sure was not a responsible member of the Government, suggest that if this House did not behave itself, that might lead to its abolition, I thought it was a particularly unhelpful and silly remark that should never have been made. I believe this House will show its respect—as has already been shown by the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition—in not seeking to frustrate the will of the elected House but giving it the opportunity to think again.
The House will have listened with great interest to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and to the noble Lord, Lord Empey. The issue of Northern Ireland and the challenges it will face is very real, and all of us who have lived with some of those problems will recognise the challenges. I concede that both noble Lords went over their time but that was in a very important cause, although it was greeted with great horror by everyone else.
Today we are all setting out our own positions. I made it clear when I spoke in the humble Address five weeks before the referendum that I believed we should remain but that there would be a very substantial Brexit vote, and that we should employ that vote to discuss with our colleagues in Europe the need for substantial reform of the EU. I believe that many other countries in the EU were also recognising that need. I had been brought up on the lesson that the argument for enlargement would be “larger but looser”, but I have to say I felt we were not given that opportunity. The EU did not change. I used to represent the Council of Ministers in a European Union of nine, and found that when it had 28 member states it was still trying to run it in the same way. I am afraid that is still its problem, and it is going to be our problem in the negotiations.
We are where we are. I think the result came as a great surprise to most people, including Mr Farage, and no plan was made for how we would deal with that situation. However, the decision has been taken. I accept the outcome of the referendum, and now we must notify of the UK’s intention to withdraw. What is now essential is that we get going. We do not know what is going to happen, and at present the only certainty is that uncertainty is usually damaging. Every day now we are going to get different stories. We have one today about the European Union Youth Orchestra moving out. There will be allegations of one sort or another, new developments such as Opel/Vauxhall will come up and all sorts of different problems will arise. The longer that lasts, the more damaging it will be. Sterling has of course been seriously hit and we face the prospect of rising inflation.
Also—I understand the problem that exists here—noble Lords may have noticed that Monsieur Macron is coming to London tomorrow, because you cannot stand for election as the President of France without trying to get the votes of the 300,000 French people who live in London at present. Not only does the uncertainty endanger economic growth and the position of our country, but it makes personal arrangements very difficult indeed.
I strongly support the speeches by my noble friends Lord Hague and Lord Hill. We have a very real challenge in these negotiations, and all should study the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, about the problems that will arise. If the noble Lord, Lord Empey, thought it was difficult in Northern Ireland, try doing it with 27 other countries that each have a vote, with the scale of the challenge that will present.
This issue is important for Europe as well. We know it has major problems, and this uncertainty comes at a time when its member states have a series of elections. Another issue I have raised in this House before is that during the two-year period, four of the smallest countries in the EU will successively have the presidency of the Union, which we will have to deal with. Malta has it now; then it will be Estonia, Romania, Austria and, for what may be a crucial last six months, Bulgaria. That shows some of the challenges we are going to face.
I do not support the idea that we ought to have a later go at it—a further vote. I do not support that in the Bill, and I do not support these amendments. At the end of the day, both sides in this argument believe in the sovereignty of Parliament, and the Government will have to have the support of Parliament for what they propose. In the end, we all believe in that, which might be the ultimate safeguard if things come seriously unstuck.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, this is not an easy debate for me as, once again, I take a minority view within my party on Europe. I have supported union in Europe since the 1950s, living in Italy, as a student in Paris in the 1960s, and throughout the late 1960s and 1970s in business, while travelling almost monthly all over Europe. In 1974, I voted and canvassed for Common Market entry. Elected an MP in the late 1970s, I occasionally intervened in the Commons on European matters, invariably against a background of mild hostility from some of my Benches. I recall to this day sounds of disapproval from behind me while on my feet in the Chamber. We were a minority in the party, and would remain so until a speech by Jacques Delors in 1989 to the TUC, during which he argued for a European approach to rights at the place of work. His message was a challenge to the Conservative agenda of deregulation and weakened workers’ rights. That speech helped change Labour attitudes to Europe and we became pro-EEC.
My first concerns arose in the 1990s, prior to Amsterdam and Nice. Arguments over wider or deeper troubled me, with the prospect of an enlarged Europe with weaker economies out of sync with mainstream Europe seeking to join. The deeper union of fewer states was being opposed by many who wanted an enlarged union to dilute demands for closer integration. By 1999, the eurozone proposed at Maastricht was under way and, although I had been an early euro supporter, I knew that the beneficiary would be Germany which, while originally resisting the euro, now saw the benefits of a fixed currency relationship with neighbouring European states.
A premature euro was born and, with it, the seeds of Europe’s problems. The problems worsened when Europe turned a blind eye to manipulation of convergence criteria—even Greece was allowed in on the back of a fraudulent Goldman Sachs prospectus. Enlargement trumped all. Our dreams of European union were being shattered by German self-interest, French intransigence over the CAP, fraud in the Union, financial mismanagement in southern European states, an outdated contribution system, a block on financial services, the nonsense of the Parliament’s location and a failure to speak with one voice on migration. All were killing the dream.
The model was wrong. The construct was inflexible. I wanted a new model, but reform from within has proved utterly impossible. Much to the irritation of many friends, I voted Brexit, my justification to my colleagues being that by doing so I would be helping to provoke an argument over Europe’s direction of travel to be followed by a crucial, to my mind, second referendum. So where do we go from here? Two issues dominate the debate: the euro and migration. In my view, the euro is unlikely to survive unless we return to a core euro area.
The second issue, migration, is galvanising opinion across the Union, and I am convinced that the UK voted leave because of immigration at home and into the wider Europe. Merited or not, it is provoking instability. I believe that without the issue of immigration, even limited to from within Europe as it is, there would have been a substantial majority remain vote. That was the critical issue. National self-interest is blocking any reform from within, as is Commission obstinacy. No one is listening to the people, and it is our threat of withdrawal under Article 50 which is forcing Europe to open a debate.
When I say threat, I mean threat. I have never believed that we would withdraw, only reopen the debate on Europe. It is now full-on. The debate has been dominated for far too long by extreme movements in Europe. Let the sensible voice of Britain lead the debate on currency, migration, subsidiarity and our place in the world. We should be selling a new vision and a new timetable in the capitals of Europe. Yes, it is high-risk, but the people of Europe want change, and events are going to change everything. During this period of instability, to ease tensions will mean nation states reacquiring the right to control their borders and, in parts of the eurozone, restoration of national currencies. Arguments that single market rules preclude amendments to free movement completely ignore the dark clouds of intolerance that are now sweeping across the continent of Europe.
The eyes of Europe are now on us, and we have it in our grasp to set out a new vision, realising the dreams of those who believe in union. All we need is courage to put a new case. All the benefits of today can be restored tomorrow if we rebuild on firmer ground. A premature Union that is alienating its people needs to be reconfigured. We should lead, and the Bill begins the process.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, although our country has voted, albeit by a comparatively small majority, to sever our links with the EU, many voters continue to voice genuine concerns and questions about the future—concerns which have been echoed eloquently by noble Lords—about the impact on our economy and on voters’ living standards; the position of EU nationals working in our communities and paying their taxes to support our services; the position of UK nationals living and working in the EU; and how our departure will impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Gibraltar.
Many are deeply concerned that our departure will precipitate the break-up of the EU itself and about the potential for new turmoil in a continent which has been ravaged by wars for hundreds of years but which has lived in comparative peace for the past 70. And, yes, they want to know exactly what a hard Brexit will mean, and they need clear answers to their questions and responses to their concerns.
There is certainly now a deeper understanding of the benefits that access to the single market has brought to the UK, and a more acute awareness of the loss that could await us when we depart the EU. The single market is, and has been, of great value to Wales—so much so that the majority of parties in the Welsh Assembly, while respecting the Welsh vote to leave the EU, have called for “full and unfettered” access to it. It is a market vital to our economy: 68% of Welsh exports go to the EU, as compared to just over 40% of the exports of the UK as a whole. Securing replacement markets is likely to be a slow and cumbersome process which could damage our economy—certainly in the short term. Those parties and the Welsh Assembly have also called for a “balanced approach” to immigration which would link migration to jobs and, crucially, they advocate the introduction of properly enforced employment practices that protect all workers.
I live in Conwy county in north Wales. Sitting at the edge of the Snowdonia National Park, it is a county blessed with the most beautiful scenery but, with a GDP per capita of 75% of the EU average, putting it on a par with Estonia and Lithuania, it has qualified for EU structural funds allocated to west Wales and the valleys since 2000. The present tranche of funding, running from 2014 to 2020, sees us benefiting from £1.9 billion of EU investment to support people into work and training, youth employment, research and innovation, renewable energy schemes and energy efficiency projects. In an area suffering rural and urban deprivation, these are essential building blocks in our attempt to grow our local economies. After my country’s decision to leave the EU, however, there are no guarantees of funding from the UK Government to continue these projects. If we are to become a low-tax economy, how will any regional policy be funded?
Agriculture plays an absolutely crucial role in the economy, employing 58,000 people directly and outputting around £1.5 billion of produce. Agricultural funding under Pillar 1 of CAP will be upheld until 2020 but the future after that is unclear. Farmers need clarity on future funding and projects, and I would be grateful if that could be given today.
The potential impact of withdrawal from the EU on the Airbus factory in north-east Wales is also concerning. This site is run by a European consortium and assembles wings for civil aircraft—wings which are transported by road and sea to Toulouse for final assembly. It directly employs more than 6,000 people, and many others contribute to the supply chain and, of course, it relies heavily on the ability to move goods and people freely between its sites.
The analogy of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU to buying a house has already been made elsewhere, and I make no apologies for using it here. Our country has taken the decision to move home. We have no idea of the cost of our new home; we are to be given no survey and no input into the final decision. We are moving, and we are all expected to accept the choice of home that will be made for us—not by us. In reality though, house buying has checks and balances throughout the process, opportunities to reflect, seek information and evaluate it, and to learn more about where we are going. We engage in decision-making throughout the process and make choices before signing an agreement.
We have to accept that we are a divided country, but a hard Brexit, delivered by a seemingly paternalistic Government, will do little to heal the divisions we all feel. We are told to accept the will of the people and unite behind the Government, but unity cannot be forced upon us. Like respect, it has to be nurtured and earned. The first steps to unity can come from the Government accepting that voters have the right to be part of the decision-making process. They have the right to reflect, learn more about their destination, re-evaluate their initial decision and either confirm or change it. On these Benches we believe that the British people must have the right to the final say on the deal negotiated by the Government. That right is fundamental to our beliefs, and it is one of the issues we will be pursuing at the later stages of this Bill.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I should make it clear that I am not an enthusiast for referendums except in the case of national self-determination, and even those should be avoided where possible. I believe the former Prime Minister made a mistake in calling a referendum but the people have spoken and their elected representatives in the other place have chosen to follow the people’s will.
Those who supported the remain cause should not be too downcast. These islands have been seeking to define their relationship with continental Europe for the past 2,000 years. The referendum result represents a turn of the wheel, and the wheel will one day turn again. Leaving the EU raises a multiplicity of questions. The Government’s White Paper has done a good job in identifying the main ones. Perhaps inevitably, it has been a little less successful in providing the answers.
Today, I should like to focus on four issues. First, as Macbeth allegedly said:
“If it were done when ‘tis done, then ‘twere well
It were done quickly”.
The Government have set themselves a demanding timetable—the more so given impending elections in Germany and France. But there is no point in stringing out the negotiations indefinitely, or opting for never-ending transitions. The British economy will have to change and adapt, and the sooner there is certainty to inform that change, the better. The British economy has shown itself to be sufficiently flexible to adapt to shocks over the last decade, and I am in no doubt that it can adapt to this one, provided the Government pursue sensible economic policies of sound money and free trade.
Secondly, we need to nurture capacity in the Civil Service. Inevitably, Whitehall expertise in the EU and trade negotiations is limited. The Secretary of State recently pointed out that we should not worry as the Civil Service coped well enough in 1940, but that misses the point. Had the Civil Service been better prepared, the pursuit of the war in 1940 would have gone a whole lot better. This is not a time for gifted amateurs who have flitted from one post to another in No. 10, the Cabinet Office or indeed the Treasury. We need to build a team of battle-hardened professional negotiators who understand the world trade order and have the contacts to construct Britain’s place in it.
Thirdly, we need to prioritise the issue of Ireland. The White Paper reminds us that the British and Irish Governments managed to deal with the border question quite happily for the 50 years between the creation of the free state and both countries joining the European Union. However, with Britain outside and Ireland still an enthusiastic member of the EU, goods and people will continue to flow freely from other EU member states into the Republic. I find it difficult to see how goods and people will be able to continue to flow freely thence across the border into Ulster. The White Paper says that the Government,
“will seek to safeguard business interests”,
in Ulster, but in the absence of a customs union, I am not sure they can. Of course, I hope the Government succeed in creating a special arrangement for the border in Ireland. If they do, it will help minimise the damage of Scottish independence, which, for all the economic arguments against, is now just a little more likely as a result of the referendum.
Finally, I make a plea for free trade, and for multilateralism over bilateralism. The Gladstonian system of liberal free trade was unilateral. In the late 19th century, this country showed admirable contempt for countries such as Germany, France and the United States, which sought to charge tariffs on imported goods. But in the 1890s, it was the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, supported by the Prime Minister’s hero, Joseph Chamberlain, which sought to undermine the free trade system by advocating bilateral trade deals. I can see this happening again, and I hope the Chancellor and Treasury will stand up to these pressures. Trade should not become an arm of foreign policy, or bureaucratic self-interest.
I have yet to decide whether to support amendments to this Bill. As I said, I am not an enthusiast for a “neverendum”, but I worry that leaving all further scrutiny to the great reform Bill will be to leave it too late. I shall listen to the debate, and I hope the House can play a constructive role in enhancing the quality of the final settlement.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, being number 40 on the list reminds me that I was some 45 years outside the European Union, and I remember well some of the service that was done, as has been mentioned, in bringing us into the European Union and the difficulties involved.
I voted for remain and was fairly enthusiastic about the referendum on the basis that the people were entitled to say whether or not they wished to be in the European Union. We know the answer and, so far as I am concerned, the Government and Parliament are bound to give effect to that answer. Perhaps the most obvious and dramatic indication of that was Mr Cameron’s resignation the morning after, when he said that having led the argument to stay, he could not lead the country out of the European Union.
So here we are, and now the question has arisen of whether the Government can initiate negotiations under the royal prerogative. The royal prerogative is well recognised as completely free in the negotiation of treaties and diplomacy generally. It is generally accepted that that is the right way to do it—Ministers should be responsible for that. There is a quotation from the 18th century that was quoted in the judgment in the Miller case. Blackstone, the great exponent of English law, explained the practical reasons for the prerogative managing international relations. He said:
“This is wisely placed in a single hand by the British constitution, for the sake of unanimity, strength and despatch. Were it placed in many hands, it would be subject to many wills: many wills, if disunited and drawing different ways, create weakness in a government; and to unite those several wills, and to reduce them to one, is a work of more time and delay than the exigencies of state will afford”.
The only reason that the prerogative was not operated to start the negotiations in connection with the European Union was because of the effect of the European Act in 1972. The fundamental rule is that the prerogative cannot affect individual parliamentary rights and therefore, to the extent necessary to open the negotiations, that authority needed to be given by an Act of Parliament. That is what the Supreme Court decided. It did not decide, and gave no countenance to the idea, that thereafter Parliament should control the negotiations. It is certainly true that ultimately the negotiations, whatever they are, will require examination. There is a distinct possibility that the implementation of what has been negotiated will, in the end, require an Act of Parliament. If that is the case, of course, Parliament will be fully involved. In the meantime, it seems much better that Ministers should have the responsibility to negotiate, because negotiation is primarily the issue here, until a final issue is reached. As I said, the judgment of the Supreme Court supports that very strongly.
Issues have been mentioned in the debate that will certainly occupy Ministers. I should like to believe that Ministers will be looking for the best possible agreement they can achieve in the interests of all the people, young and old, living in the United Kingdom—England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I do not want to forget Gibraltar either, where the problems must be quite severe but different, in a way, from Northern Ireland. Those of us who have visited Gibraltar realise how tenuous the system there is and how this may affect it. Ministers have a responsibility to deal with all that and it is best for us to leave it to them to do so without trying to interfere, or put our finger in the pie, until they have finished the negotiations.
Therefore, I am all in favour of Second Reading and of the Bill being confirmed as it is. I hope that will be the outcome from this House, not because I am an unelected person—indeed, I am not the only unelected person in the British constitution. No member of the Government is elected to his or her position. Most of them are, of course, elected to the House of Commons but not to their position in government. I want to vote for the Bill not because I am unelected but because the decision is right.
Lord Alli (Lab)
My Lords, I start by making a confession. I am glad that the Chamber is not full and I hope that noble Lords will keep my confession to themselves. I know that it will not please many noble friends on this side of the House and I know that it will probably please many noble Lords on the opposite side. For that, I can only say sorry to my noble friends and colleagues. Here goes: I like Theresa May. There, I have said it. Let me continue in that same vein of honesty. I equally do not trust Boris Johnson, David Davis or Liam Fox successfully to negotiate a good deal with the EU, or any other nation. There, I said that, too. I have no confidence that they have the skills, understanding and competence to do such a deal. I know that they have many other attributes, but managing a complex and tough set of negotiations is not among them.
For those of us—and there are many in this House—who have run, built or managed big multibillion-pound commercial operations, we know that putting the trainees to run your most important deal is a mistake. That is what it looks like will happen. In this House, there are eight former EU Commissioners, two of whom have already spoken. There are current and past CEOs of some of Britain’s biggest companies. There are chairmen, past and present, of many of our most successful businesses. I say to the Prime Minister: this House is not your enemy. This House is a resource and a place to find advice, help and skills that are not available in the other place. Therefore, I hope that the Prime Minister will seek to involve this House more and not less in the negotiations. I hope that a mechanism can be found to include Members of the House in the negotiating process while preserving the confidentiality required to negotiate—perhaps something akin to the intelligence committee in the other place.
It was perhaps not the Government’s finest hour being dragged before the courts and forced to bring this Bill before Parliament, so it is only natural that many in the House might worry or be suspicious about reassurances from the Government from the Dispatch Box. I would like to see, as I suspect would many in this House and in the other place, a legal commitment to a vote in both Houses before the Article 50 deal is put before the European Parliament. If Parliament rejects the deal by the Government, I want it to be given a series of options, including sending the Government back to the negotiating table.
I want a strong Britain with a strong economy that serves those who voted for Brexit as well as those who voted against. I want jobs for those without them and an education and a health service that are the envy of the world. I want a Britain that is confident and not weakened by fear of false enemies. That is the challenge of Brexit—a better, stronger Britain—and I expect the Government to deliver on that promise. Millions of people’s hopes and fears rest on the actions of the Government in the coming months and years. I genuinely wish the Government well and I will do my part to help by continuing to invest in the UK economy. However, I will also hold the Government to account for the hopes and fears of many. If they cannot deliver better than we have today, they should not be afraid to say so and they should look at the alternative options, no matter how politically unappealing some of those might seem today. We are here, after all, to serve not just political dogma.
Before I sit down, I would like to say a word about the behaviour of the House. Those of us who have been on the Back Benches for a long time do not behave badly and we really do not need to be lectured on our behaviour. The people who behave badly, generally, are front-line politicians, who will be found at the front of the House, not at the back. Back-Benchers in this place have an amazing record of being absolutely brilliant at the things that they bring to the House. If noble Lords and Members of the other place would remember that, I think that the debate would go much more easily.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, the Government are about to take the momentous step of triggering Article 50. I never had any doubt about that happening. There is a White Paper, whose purpose is, as the Secretary of State said,
“to inform all the debates … in the coming two years”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/17; col. 1219.]
For the mother of all negotiations we have 73 pages, much of it occupied by current fact analysis, graphs and explanatory boxes, but with no substantive guidance on how co-operation is envisaged to work. How it could work is not a negotiating tactic; it is the fundamental prospectus and it should not be secret.
As the saying goes, we are where we are. We do not know where we will end up, because, in the words that spring out from the White Paper, our future relationship is entirely,
“a matter for the negotiations”.
It says so in paragraph 2.10 on dispute resolution; in 8.31 on our Euratom relationship; in 8.45 on our new customs relationship; in 8.42 on our relationship with European agencies; and in 12.2 for the interim arrangements that we will rely on. The Irish border, financial services, scientific co-operation—the list goes on. Dependent on the results of those negotiations will be the interpretation of the word “possible” in the frequently used expressions of “frictionless and seamless as possible”, “freely as possible”, “as much as possible”, “close as possible” and “as much certainty as possible”.
It is worse than no certainty, because the Government have said that they will jump off the cliff into disordered uncertainty as their only alternative. I do not agree that the Government already have an incontestable mandate for that; this may also turn out to be the constitutional position. Nor will there be any certainty through early priorities because we are merely on the brink of swapping the EU’s “no negotiation before triggering” mantra for its standard negotiating one of “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. However, there could be one important certainty if the Government would confirm the acquired rights of EU citizens currently in the UK. Holding off is doing harm to the UK, in the NHS and elsewhere, so as a negotiating card it is bust—it is known and shown to have no value. At least grasp the fig leaf of decency now.
I declare a deep personal interest in Euratom because my late father, Percy Bowles, was arguably the foremost engineer of his time in atomic energy and particle accelerators. For UK purposes, the term “EU” includes Euratom in so far as context requires. Therefore, as it stands, the Bill might enable the Prime Minister to give notice, at the appropriate time, with regard to the Euratom legal entity. The question is when as well as whether that is appropriate. The Library note gives some arguments that it is not clear cut whether Euratom has to be included automatically in the Article 50 trigger. This gives the Government an opportunity and useful alternatives for transition, by not triggering Article 50 simultaneously with regard to Euratom. In this, it is the EU definitions that matter. Why not look before leaping and at least have some negotiation about the modalities under which there could be continuing membership of Euratom, having regard to the long liability timescales, which include eventual JET decommissioning? Even a short delay for Euratom might be helpful, given that the Dutch, French and German elections and summer holidays play the UK into Michel Barnier’s format of early talks being around the formulation of financial provisions. I cannot see why the UK would not keep this chance card when it keeps the useless EU migrants one.
There are amendments that I will support. The Government have made their own difficulties: there is inadequate information on how this is meant to work; the engineering, like a perpetual motion machine, is deeply suspect; and there is the needless closing off of options with their “not a jot or tittle of EU” approach. We did not need to be hog-tied in that way. In the end, you will have to cut some slack because you will be rumbled. Perpetual motion machines always are.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I first arrived in this House in 1981, at the tender age of 29—even younger than the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, I am actually elected—as an accepted hereditary. It is rather like being the Member for Old Sarum, but I am elected. During that time, one has seen and heard a lot; this is the largest turnout I have ever witnessed. Given my number on the speakers list, I have been listening politely. We got up to 10, 20, 30 and 40 and I thought: “This is wonderful, nobody has made the points that I wish to make”. Then, suddenly, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, stood up. I have not had the pleasure of meeting him but perhaps we should get together and confer more often, since he clearly reads my mind or, in the early hours of the morning, I have been reading his.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, my reputation as a political soothsayer or voter in referenda suffered a bit of a battering in 2016. I got it wrong about the referendum and the US election, so my credit with people who thought I had some political insight is virtually zero. I last spoke in this House in March last year and that seems like a lifetime ago, but here we are. We have an unanticipated outcome and we appear to have had little or no effective scenario planning of options before the event. Now we have a scramble to get our collective heads around it. This was illuminated for me, rather uncomfortably, by a real conversation I had about two months ago with a friend from the north of England who turned out to be very strongly pro-leave—for this evening’s purposes I will call him Nigel. We talked about the reasons for voting to leave for about 10 minutes. At the end of the conversation, we tried to sum it up. I said to Nigel: “I think we are agreeing with each other that the political grandees who were most in favour of our leaving are probably, intellectually and managerially, the least competent to manage our way out of it”. He said: “Yes”. I said: “So, basically, those of us who did not want to leave are going to have to manage our way through this”. He said: “Yes”. I said: “OK: that is where we are, but it does not feel too great”. We moved on. For many of us, that is where we are.
By and large, people did not vote on political grounds. Very large numbers of electors who normally support the Conservative Party or the Labour Party chose not to follow their political leaders but to go in their own direction. Some 37.5% of the total electorate voted to leave and 34.6% chose to remain. While the new US President might regard this gulf between the two percentages as “awesome”, “historic”, “unprecedented” or even “earth shattering”, some of us might choose to differ and recognise that it was really quite close. One of my great-grandfathers had the good sense to be a Conservative politician: his name was Stanley Baldwin. If ever he heard somebody speaking about politicians being “in power”, he would quietly correct them and say: “You misunderstand the basis of being elected. You are elected into office, as much to represent those who did not vote for you—or at all—as those who did vote for you”.
I listened to the passionate arguments and so-called facts and counterfacts being bandied about, and listened with, frankly, visceral distaste to accusations of a lack of patriotism from people who I describe as strangely sore winners. You normally have sore losers but we appear to have sore winners as well. We need cool and measured heads and minds, but we also need political stethoscopes to enable us to listen to our fellow citizens’ hearts. Sore winners and sore losers do not make good negotiators, particularly when they disagree with one another rather thoughtlessly.
Finally, I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. Some in your Lordships’ House, particularly those who have enjoyed a career in another place and have achieved the dizzy heights of being appointed privy counsellors, seem to have forgotten that the courtesies of this House are different and are greatly valued by most of us. Audibly and theatrically disagreeing with others’ views may be meat and drink to the other place but not here.
Lord Howell of Guildford
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for accidentally queue barging. I listened with interest to most of what he said. I did not agree with his last remark, but that is another matter.
Like others, I welcome this mercifully short Bill. I have to confess that after more than 45 years of almost continuous EU debates, Bills, treaties and arguments, it is quite hard to think of anything extremely new and useful to say. Of course, this House can add analysis, insights and advice aplenty, and many noble Lords are supremely well qualified to do that. We have heard some such comments this afternoon and will hear a great deal more in the weeks to come. However, I just cannot see the point at this stage of trying to amend what is essentially a procedure, to use the medical term, and one that must be handled with immense and undistracted care and a minimum of elbow jogging if it is to succeed and get us through to where we want to be.
There are said to be two front-runner amendments in prospect, so the media tell us. One concerns the status of EU residents. That is a very tricky one. I must confess that much as I would like to be on the side of the unilateralists, I am afraid that it looks as though a unilateral approach is not going to work. Some continental countries and leaders are clearly not going to budge except under pressure, and we obviously cannot abandon 1 million British citizens. The other front-runner is about Parliament’s say in a final deal. I am not sure that it will come back in this neat packaged way, as everyone currently, particularly those in the other place, seems to think. However, I will return to that in a moment.
The point I wish to make lies with trade and the single market. I confess my difficulty in trying to get into the mindset of those such as Tony Blair, the excellent noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, who spoke so clearly, and our Liberal Democrat friends, and their fears of a hard Brexit. The more I hear about their fears, the more I feel that I am listening to a world view of trade which is completely and utterly obsolete. Services, digital and conventional, are rapidly coming to dominate international exchange. McKinsey says that data and information flows generate more economic value than all global goods trade. Our economy is 80% services, 33% of them in actual digital or digitally-related businesses. Slightly under half of current export earnings come from services and this will grow fast. The recent Government White Paper tells us that 37% of the total value of our goods exports are services anyway. This is not just financial services. In fact, all the other services—retail, consultancy, legal services, creative industries, design, fashion, tourism, accountancy and much more—are still much bigger earners than financial services. The reason for this unstoppably powerful trend is that in the last few years we have seen the complete collapse of communication and information costs to almost zero and the internationalisation of production, with disruptive, transformative and revolutionary effects on all trade and investment flows.
A massive shift of global GDP shares from the west and the north to the east and the south has taken place, a total reversal of fortunes from the old form of globalisation in the 20th century that went on before 1990, where the north and the west got richer with global trade and the south got poorer. Now it is the other way round, except for the very richest who have done well in both areas. The chief new winners and the new markets are China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Nigeria, Korea, Australia, Mexico and Turkey. Incidentally, three of those are in the Commonwealth. Of course, services know no boundaries as they are duty free and are not part of a customs union. On the other hand, they are restricted in the EU by numerous national and local rules.
The fact is that in recent years the EU has not been a good place for services expansion. Our UK services exports have grown less to other members within the EU than to outside markets, and outside countries not in the EU have done better in exporting services into the EU than we have since 1993, when the single market came into being. Of the 20 countries with the fastest export growth over the last 10 years, only three are in the EU. Meanwhile, global value chains wind across all continents, making a nonsense of protected production zones such as the single market, and with components and partly processed products crossing borders multiple times. The obvious conclusion and analysis is that being in or out of the old single market is of decreasing relevance to our interests and prosperity. Skills and sheer innovative power are becoming far more important.
It is a bitter fact that in these novel conditions we have so far been rather a bad exporter, one of the weakest in Europe. We live off a precarious model of massive trade deficits and heavy imports to fill the gap. We cannot go on like this. As noble Lords have observed, we need a new model. As my noble friend Lord Hill said earlier, business cannot operate in a vacuum and will not wait for these deliberations and negotiations. Businesses are making their own deals and arrangements. Quite aside from the complexity of it all, the whole prospect depends on how views crystallise across the channel. The EU is entering a major period of political upheaval. Another euro crisis is just round the corner. The Visegrad Four are going their own way. A divorce has to be agreed by 72% of Council members and a new relationship has to be agreed by 39 parliamentary chambers. How will it ever be finalised at a Brussels level? Will M Barnier ever have the authority to settle it all?
Of course, we must stay very close to our European neighbours on a whole range of security and safety issues. However, a new mental model is required to comprehend the unprecedented trade situation. Tony Blair says that the Government are not masters of the situation. He has not grasped that in these fluid new conditions no Government are in control or in mastery. We are caught up in historic forces—social, technological and therefore political—much bigger than any single Government, as are many other countries, including the United States of America. The old single market is a smaller and smaller part of the scene. Our interests and future prosperity now lie on a wider stage and we must move confidently and unimpeded to the centre of it.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the much respected noble Lord, Lord Howell, as some 20 years ago I followed him in chairing the Foreign Affairs Committee in the other place.
We live in strange times. This is a very short Bill but with momentous consequences. Consensual habits built over 45 years are to be set aside. Brexiteers argued for restoring national and parliamentary sovereignty. Therefore, it is puzzling that the Government did not wish this debate to take place, and relied instead on the royal prerogative, like some 17th-century monarch. We had the amazing spectacle of the other place approving this Bill with a vast majority when the majority of Members of Parliament believe it not to be in our national interest.
I make three brief points. The first concerns the nature of the decision on 23 June. Much of the post-referendum analysis has focused on the regional differences between London and Scotland and so on. Perhaps of more interest to us and, indeed, to the Government, if they wish to govern for the country as a whole, is the age difference. Three-quarters of 18 to 24 year-olds voted to remain. The young, whose interests will be most affected, voted strongly to remain; the old, who by definition have a shorter-term interest, voted to leave. Forty-six was the changeover point.
Why was there this age differential? First, of course, there was alienation. However, one explanation is surely nostalgia—a yearning for yesteryear, a reluctance to come to terms with the United Kingdom of today, with its modernity and diversity. To adapt Trump again, it was about “making Britain great again”, and “again” was perhaps the operative word in looking back to some time in the past. Perhaps the nostalgia even includes memories of the Commonwealth as it was. Indeed, a group of Conservative Members apparently want a new entry channel at our ports and airports for the Commonwealth, but, oddly, seem to focus only on the old white dominions. They perhaps forget that Commonwealth Governments, perhaps unanimously, favoured remain, and past attempts to revive Commonwealth trade have not been particularly successful. Indeed, any new deals we reach with the Commonwealth could harm some of our key national interests, including agriculture, lamb, beef, and so on. Surely there is now a danger that the Government will desperately try, after Europe, to create alternative alliances; for example, by cosying up to the Trump Administration in the US—a point already made in relation to pollution by the special rapporteur in the UN Commission on Human Rights. There have already been some hints of shifts in foreign policy.
Secondly, on the referendum itself, we were told, “The people must be consulted, they have spoken, and their view should now be respected”. Technically, this must be right; although the referendum was only advisory, we have to acknowledge political reality and not act like Mr Tony Benn in 1975, who having worked hard for a referendum, continued to campaign against what was the Common Market, even after a 2:1 vote in favour, not the 52:48. How did the referendum come about? Let us not ignore the weakness of Mr Cameron. He obtained his selection as Conservative leader by vowing to leave the European People’s Party group, much against our interests; he promoted the Act to hold a referendum before any transfer of power to Brussels, as if it was some alien, hostile power; and, of course, it was hardly surprising, therefore, that he was not credible when he stood on his head and advised the country to follow his lead.
Thirdly, how do we now respond to the Bill? Do we fold our arms and say, “The people have spoken. Long live the people!”? I make three points. Clearly, we have to concede that the remainers were too gloomy on the effects of a negative vote, at least in the short term. However, the Brexiteers were guilty of patent lies: the additional sums to the National Health Service, the imminent entry of Turkey, and no mention of an exit fee. Yes, we should look with respect, as we have already, at the work of our scrutiny committees, which have been trail-blazers—particularly our EU sub-committees. There are now chances at least to soften the impact of leaving by passing amendments on, for example, EU citizens here, the Irish border, the environment and workers’ rights.
We have to ask: did the referendum give the Government a blank cheque? Are there no constraints on their ambitions on the single market, the customs union, borders and universities? Surely there should at least be a meaningful vote in Parliament at the end of the process, and as the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, said clearly, what is now proposed is no concession.
Finally, perhaps we should not rule out the possibility of a second referendum when the final package is clear. David Davis, the Minister, began the debate on 31 January by speaking of,
“a very simple question: do we trust the people or not?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/17; col. 818.]
On 23 June the people voted negatively, to leave. Do we still have that trust? Should they not now be trusted by the Government to give an answer to the positive question: do you approve of the package the Government have negotiated on your behalf?
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and I could not agree more with him on that last point.
I do not take kindly to threats. There may be many reasons for which this House in its current form should be abolished or reformed, but expressing our views honestly is not one of them. Those in the other place who seek to threaten and bully us should be ashamed of themselves. If we send this back to the Commons with amendments, it is simply to say, “Look at this again”—that is what we do with legislation. At least, that is my understanding after a year in your Lordships’ House. This is no different.
We live in uncertain times in an uncertain world, which is even more uncertain today now that the new leader of the free world appears to have no understanding of or respect for his role—or worse. Each day brings another jaw-dropping statement, press briefing, appointment, tweet or executive order, the reality of which is stark and dangerous. I have always been a great fan of America and have always wanted a close relationship with the country that has the most power. I also wanted a close relationship with Europe. I am now concerned about our relationship with the former.
But, to be frank, even if it had been Hillary, in an internationalist world we stand with our friends, be that the EU, NATO, the Commonwealth or the United Nations. None of these groupings is perfect—far from it—and all need to be more effective and dynamic. But the EU was our rock and it is our nearest and dearest. I am broken-hearted that, on a simple majority in a poorly argued and lie-ridden campaign—on both sides—our nation is walking away from peace, security, jobs and economic success. Yes, we will survive—how well is yet to be seen—but do not threaten me or tell me not to fight for what I believe in or not to stay as involved and as close as is humanly possible to Europe post Brexit. On this debate—the power to trigger Article 50—I have but a few comments on key issues.
Without Euratom—I have always pronounced it “Eurahtom”: you say “Euratom” and I say “Eurahtom” —the peaceful use of nuclear energy, nuclear safety, nuclear safeguards, nuclear security and research into nuclear fusion are not certain. As ever, there are two views from the legal profession: one that leaving the EU means we automatically leave Euratom, and the opposing view that leaving the EU does not mean leaving Euratom. It is beyond vital that we remain in Euratom, even if we were outside Europe, for the reasons afore given, one way or the other.
On EU nationals, as has been expressed across your Lordships’ House, we should give assurance to the EU unilaterally that their future is secure. This is no way for a decent country to behave. On the single market, we need our heads examined if we leave. I was a Home Office Minister and worked with Theresa May for three years. She is a very sensible and clever woman. I hope beyond hope that hard Brexit is a negotiating position, and that common sense will prevail in the negotiations and that we will retain access to that market. Anything else is beyond mad.
Lastly, I come to perhaps the most important part of the process that this debate kicks off, which is that we should give the British people the final say on the deal when it is dealt. Listening to MP after MP in the Commons debate say how much they disagreed with leaving the EU but that they did not wish to frustrate the will of the people, it was—if noble Lords will forgive me—as if their cojones had gone missing. That is the point. In the Commons they are in a double bind—or perhaps more of a triple bind. They are torn between their conscience, the will of their constituents and the overarching result in the country. That is why this must go back to the people. It will be almost impossible for Parliament to simply vote without the confirmation of the British people. It started with the people and it must end with the people, when they are in a position to make a judgment based on the facts—the deal itself. Parliament can debate and argue, but it is clear that the Commons believes that it must not frustrate the will of the people—though, if noble Lords will excuse my cynicism, I wonder what will happen when the cold wind of Brexit blows public opinion the other way.
Of course, the referendum was clear: as clear as mud. The retrospective clarity that is now given to it was not there at the time and is no substitute for the ultimate truth that will be the deal. That we should make this momentous change and leave the EU on a simple majority—the result of an advisory referendum based on campaigns that had only a tangential relationship to the truth and that was given as the result of appeasement of the right wing of the Conservative Party—is unforgivable.
The final decision must go back to the people; and the people of this country can be trusted, knowing the deal on the table, to make a decision about whether their first view, now informed by reality, remains their view. Of the people, by the people and for the people.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who spoke with her customary conviction and a little bit of entertaining European language. I declare my interests as set out in the register of the House and also that I am a member of the EU Select Committee, of which I shall speak further.
I note that the ratio of the number of words likely to be spoken in this Second Reading debate to that contained in the Bill is surely a parliamentary record. I will try not to add unduly to that ratio and confine my remarks to three issues. The first is the Bill itself. On this issue I associate myself wholly with the remarks and reasoning of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, in particular his “keen desire to get on”. There has been much eloquence arguing the same today and I would add only the simple observation that one does not drive successfully forward by always looking in the rear view mirror.
The second issue that I want to briefly touch on is that of uncertainty. Any amendment in this process that promotes uncertainty should be rejected as not being in our national interests. Others today have spoken of this but there are at least three areas of uncertainty that we must have regard to, and which worry me. The first is the status of our negotiators at any negotiations. The noble Lords, Lord Hill of Oareford and Lord Empey, were particularly good and thought-provoking about that and I wholly agree with them. Our negotiators must be empowered and cannot do a good job if they are not. The second is the truism that uncertainty is the enemy of commerce—which, after all, is the root of our prosperity—the success of which ultimately provides the very services we all hold so dear. The third is uncertainty of all different types, which is so deeply worrying for many of our 65 million fellow inhabitants of these islands. In short, there is a lot of uncertainty about. This Bill must certainly not add to that, and if it is passed in an unamended form, I think it will in fact reduce uncertainty, at least partially.
The third issue concerns the work of the EU Select Committee and, indeed, the other Committees of this House, such as the excellent Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lang. I was with the EU Select Committee recently, both for the two-day visit to Brussels and the three-day visit to Strasbourg. The European Parliament very much feels that it is in the same position as this House—it is the same problem from the other end of the telescope. We discussed the parliamentary role, particularly during our three days in Strasbourg. Those discussions took place on a formal basis with 17 MEPs from 12 countries.
It seemed to me, though it is sometimes difficult to be absolutely clear, that they are going to rely on three things in scrutinising their own process at the other end of the telescope. They will rely, first, on their committee structures, which are a bit weaker than ours; secondly, on undertakings given to them about access to information; and thirdly on a special structure whereby one of their number, Mr Verhofstadt, with staff and other MEPs chosen by him, will have a special level of engagement in the process. It struck me that those three things in the round are not so different from where this House is today. At least those MEPs thought that was a reasonable place to be; and it therefore seems not unreasonable for me to agree with that.
The EU Select Committee and other Committees of this House are serving up quite a barrage of good reports aimed at helping the process, informing discussion and providing scrutiny generally. As other noble Lords have remarked, the EU Select Committee structure includes 73 active Members of this House, and there is the same number again of ex-Members. There are 25 full-time staff, and anyone who has come across them will know what high-quality staff we have. Since 23 June we have presented 10 reports for debate in this House, where everyone can have their say, and there are a further seven in the pipeline. I have some knowledge of those and they, too, are thought-provoking and helpful to the process. I note that the Select Committees are receiving a tremendous level of engagement from Ministers and their staff. I know that from personal experience—in fact, I was speaking to a Minister on Friday, who made me a promise.
The Committees of this House are a scrutiny tool that is seasoned, impartial, flexible and of this House. We should use them to their limits. In the end, that path will be far more effective at enabling the nation to achieve a successful Brexit—not just for our 65 million people but for all 500 million citizens of the EU 28.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market (Con)
My Lords, I wish to comment briefly on the point just made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about the importance of our Select Committees. Coming from the other House a long time ago, I have been impressed by the work of the Select Committees and the way in which they are impartial in looking at all the issues. I very much regret that they get so little attention in the media, because I think that they merit it and it does not often occur.
The problem with this debate with so many speakers—it must almost be a record—is that all the points one wanted to make have already been made again and again, and the time allowed is such that one must be highly selective on what one concentrates on. I have torn up my original speech and will contribute a few staccato points to indicate broadly where I stand. It is difficult to say anything new.
I compliment the Government and our Ministers on the Front Bench for the way in which they have ensured that this House is being fully involved in the consultations and the whole process. Our Constitution Committee, on which I serve and which has been so admirably chaired by my noble friend Lord Lang, raised early on the need to consult Parliament throughout. I was astonished that the judges took such flak from the media over their judgment on the need to consult Parliament in relation to Article 50, which we are now debating, and the need for legislation for parliamentary authorities to embark on Article 50. They were simply reinforcing the primacy of Parliament. Our Front Bench is to be congratulated on the positive way in which they are taking forward the consultation process.
I voted remain, not least because early in my political career, a long time ago at university, as a young lad from a coal-mining community in Scotland I got involved in the wider debates on the EU and became committed to the belief that we should join the then Common Market, and I have remained with that view and that position. However, I had many negotiations with the EU in various ministerial roles and I became rather embittered by things that I did not want the EU to be doing. For example, so little attention was paid to subsidiarity in so many of our discussions and yet it is very important. I became somewhat less enthusiastic, but I voted remain and still hold that view. However, I will be voting yes to this Bill for all the reasons outlined by my noble friend Lord Hague.
I suspect I am in a minority when I say that we should not regard the referendum vote as necessarily final. That is what I originally thought but, having listened to the debate and the recent speakers, I am in the same camp as they are. We need to remember that the vote was close, that it was different in different parts of the country, as the right reverend Prelate emphasised in his comments, and that it was different between age groups, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, demonstrated. It was different and it was close.
When I was talking to voters about the referendum, many of them did not know what to believe given the different figures and other issues that were being bandied about. They were voting not about the EU referendum but about issues they were unhappy about generally and wanted to make a protest vote. As I say, this is probably a minority view, but I do not believe that the referendum vote should be decided as final. The real issue is what the reaction is to the outcome of the negotiations, and that is where the final judgment and vote should take place.
I have read the debates in the other place and I am still somewhat confused about the timing and process as to the relationships between the votes in our Parliament and in the European Parliament. When my noble friend winds up, will he clarify what the timing and powers of the European Parliament are in this process in relation to ours?
Much has been made about the benefits of the wider trade negotiations with other major economies and the blocs which will be more open to us on withdrawal from the EU. However, as I understand it, these WTO negotiations have normally taken many years and the benefits could be slow in coming, with some of the disbenefits coming rather faster. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on how that process of wider negotiations with the other major economic blocs will progress.
I strongly support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on the possible consequences for universities and scientific establishments of withdrawal in relation to funding and, possibly even more important, the ability to recruit and retain foreign nationals. I have had many representations on this point, not least from agricultural centres such as the John Innes Centre in Norwich, which has a high international reputation in agricultural and biological research. It is concerned about whether it will be able to attract people in the future.
Allied to that is the position of other EU citizens working and living in this country and of our own national citizens in the same situation in EU countries. This is not only a source of worry to them; it is a worry to businesses as well. The lack of clarity is already having practical effects, as I gather that there is evidence now emerging that Polish workers and others are going back to their countries because of the fear that they will not be able to remain here. I know that the Prime Minister has this issue on board and understandably stresses the need for agreement on reciprocity. However, there is mutual interest between ourselves and the rest of the EU because there is at least as much concern on this issue among their citizens. Is there any possibility of a fast-track process to resolve this at an early stage and remove such misery and uncertainty for so many people?
Finally, I referred in the earlier debate to how long I believe this process is going to take. I was very impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, on this subject today, with his practical understanding of the realities of the situation. It is clear there are many in this House whose experiences are worth tapping into and benefiting from. Today is a very good example of that.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I came into the other place when he was a Minister in the Government and I was able to listen to him with great interest and great learning then.
I am now privileged to be a member of the EU Select Committee and I am learning a lot there too. I do not intend in this short speech to dwell on the knotty issues that the committee is dealing with. I want to talk much more about the context within which our deliberations in Committee and here in the Chamber are taking place. I leave every meeting of the committee and the sub-committee thinking, “This is much more complex than any of us ever thought it would be”. There is no issue where you do not realise, as you listen to the different views and witnesses, that this is very difficult.
And therein lies the problem. We are living in a world where complexity scares people. We do not need experts, we were famously told. That suggests we do not need knowledge—let us keep things simple, in short sentences that can become slogans. Populism is becoming the driver of politics around the world, but some of us know—from our history books if nothing else, but also from the experiences of members of our families—that populism thrives on driving divisions and on the polarisation of people and countries.
Populism does not like diversity; it rejects it. This concern or fear, which has arisen because of globalisation and what it brings and from seeing that the world is so complex, has driven fear of migration. I was born in Sunderland and I am proud of that, but it is monocultural. We do not have that many migrants in the north-east, but people believe what they read about migrants and they are frightened. Yet for me one of the great strengths of our country is its diversity. We are not all the same. Diversity is one of the things that makes, for example, our soft power—the modern, indispensable tool of foreign policy—so effective.
The truth is that this country has been divided by the referendum. The Prime Minister has decided that migration is the most important aspect to address. I wish she had put forward her ideas about migration at the beginning. Had she put forward proposals about, for example, work permits for people from the European Union and about having to contribute when you come to this country in order to be entitled to benefits, then she would not have had to announce that we have to leave the European single market and so on. She would have been able to negotiate very good deals. Many other European countries are looking at that sort of way to tackle migration.
However, as people keep saying, we are where we are. The painful divisions mean that, quiet honestly, the debate has become unacceptable. If we talk about the essence of politics, which involves compromise, we are derided. Judges who do their job interpreting the law are derided as enemies of the people. Those who disagree with the decisions and direction taken by the Government are cast aside as “bemoaners”, not concerned with implementing the will of the people. When we point out that the degree of sovereignty will not be absolute, and that even no agreement and going to WTO rules will involve some loss of sovereignty, we are seen as not prepared to accept the will of the people. I believe we have to change the tone of the political debate. That will be good, not only for us as a country and a society, but for the future negotiations with the EU.
The point of Parliament is to solve disagreements through debate, and that will include dissent. Parliament does not give in, and should not give in, to intimidation. This Bill, which was grudgingly brought forward by the Government, is essentially about the right of Parliament to be involved and, hopefully, to have some control over the process of leaving the European Union. It would be very odd if we were to be bullied out of that right. We know that bullying has to be confronted. Certainly we women know that. Threats will not intimidate me or this place.
Today and next week, Parliament can take back control of leaving the EU. I hope we will do it in a way that demonstrates that we recognise and celebrate the diversity of views and of people in this country and that, rather than seek more division and polarisation, we do what we can to bring people and the country together.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I voted to join the European Economic Community in 1975 when I was young, optimistic and had little idea what the longer-term implications were, and what this would mean in practice for the British people. Over the last 42 years I have spent many happy hours under this machinery, at the bottom of the telescope looking upwards, trying to make this labyrinthine and ever-growing institution work in practice in some of the most challenging communities in this country. My colleagues and I have had our fingers burnt on many occasions. In practice, the bureaucracy was horrendous and it always paid its invoices late, often 12 months late.
Over the last 10 years I have been privileged to spend quality time sitting on a number of EU Select Committees in your Lordships’ House, now looking down the telescope, trying to discover more about which levers are connected to what and how in practice partnership working is happening across the 28 countries that make up this institution. If I am honest, the experience has not filled me with confidence. My sense has been at its simplest that there are lots of us sitting above all this machinery reading lots of papers at what feels like 60,000 feet, unsure who is watching all the complex linkages and levers that make all this government work.
The real acid test for the general public of this outdated machinery is: can it deliver for the peoples of Europe in practice when it really counts? Over the last few years this public have watched children drowning in the Mediterranean and witnessed an organisation that seems to have little if no control of its borders. This institution has not filled people with confidence—lots of meetings, lots of politicians slapping each other on the back and billions of euros spent, but can it all deliver when it really counts?
It has been my position in recent years, given the scale and reach of this European project, that the British people should be able to visit again the question of our place within the European Union, fundamentally because I worried that there was a democratic legitimacy problem. If people could not understand and grasp its inner workings and had little control over it, it was right that they should have a say as to whether they should travel further down this road. On this occasion I did not vote. I wanted to hear the British public’s response. I understood that when the British people had decided upon this question, one way or the other, my responsibility as a Member of this House would be to work with others to ensure that this decision was enacted and carried out to the best of our ability—question, yes, but not undermine an imperfect but legitimate democratic process.
Now that the British people have decided, it is not our job, however disappointed some of us may be with the result, to play clever political games with what is now the clear wish of the British people to leave. The decision has been made and our job is to pass this legislation and allow the Prime Minister and her team to initiate the negotiation with our colleagues in the European Union. I fear that those who play games at this time undermine the very democracy we live in and people’s confidence in it. Amid all the noise, I have been impressed by the Prime Minister’s calm and considered approach and sense of purpose. It is time—not unquestioningly—to get behind her and pass this legislation for the sake of the peoples of this country.
The world is changing and increasingly fast moving. The internet is the defining principle of our age. The future will be defined for our children by entrepreneurs and innovators in this new century. In this new environment there are real questions as to whether the Government and the public sector machinery and institutions that we have are fit for purpose, given the global challenges we face. The European project could have renewed this out-of-date infrastructure; I fear that many of our people know from personal experience that instead it is drowning them in treacle and they do not like it.
Big, impersonal institutions—be they in business or the state—are an anathema to this age. People have a deep experience of red tape every time they pick up the phone. In trying to take out a mortgage, for example, they see and experience what is happening in our financial services. They do not know whether the EU, the large, unwieldy banks, or whomever is to blame, but it feels as if no one is in control of the beast any more. They do not like it.
Today, our children are a nation not of shopkeepers but of entrepreneurs. We in this House have experience from the wrong century, and we feel it. If we are honest with ourselves, how deep is our grasp of what is actually going on in the EU machinery that is operating below us? How many of our politicians down the corridor have ever even thought about this? During the referendum campaign, leading up to the vote last June, I suspect that the British people watched and listened to the many wild claims which turned out not to be true from politicians on all sides of our political spectrum. They instinctively worried that this machinery had a life of its own and that no one was in charge of it.
I am an entrepreneur who has spent a great deal of his life trying to take problems and turn them into opportunities. I am optimistic because the present time is laden with new possibilities. Many of the people I work with out in the real world see this. People are beginning to turn their sails into this new wind. We need to get behind them. There are challenges, yes, but there are also new opportunities. This new time requires a very different mindset from us all. Some of our largest institutions with the most to lose will inevitably find this most difficult because so many of their vested interests are tied up in an old order that is now passing away.
One of the opportunities now facing us is to spend far more time and effort using this new digital age to reinvent how our public sector works. The modern world of the internet is about integrated working. Our government silos and processes are profoundly out of date yet we carry on as though nothing is changing around us.
As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, recently suggested in the House Magazine, the great repeal Bill offers us a rare opportunity to transform our bureaucracy and regulatory culture. Let us not miss this opportunity. Our economy depends upon it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I want to live in a country that is welcoming, inclusive, tolerant and creative—and, therefore, happy and prosperous. I fear that Britain is heading in a different direction. The referendum seems to have unleashed a wave of anger and intolerance which is truly frightening and dangerous for this country.
I have canvassed in many elections over the years. One of the most cheering aspects of doing so has been the response—even from those who say they would not dream of voting for my party in a million years. People have been pleasant and polite. However, when I campaigned for a remain vote, I was stunned by the irrational hostility I met. When I dared to voice my concerns over the outcome of the referendum, my postbag—both virtual and real—was awful. It was astonishing that people actually put stamps on those diatribes. There were plaintive messages from UK citizens living in Europe who now feel completely abandoned, but there were many more, branding me “slut”, “whore”, “harlot”, “scum” and much, much worse. Encouraged, no doubt, by various, more vicious parts of the media, those correspondents declared that I and others who shared my views were simply out to defy the will of the people.
It is debatable whether what my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke referred to as “an opinion poll” is a sensible way to determine the will of the people. I should like to pay tribute to the one Tory MP who had the courage to defy the will of the Whips and follow his conscience.
Whatever way the public voted in the referendum, I believe it is not only the right but the responsibility of those of us who believe that leaving Europe will be bad for the country to say so and not be intimidated by the bullies. Sacrifice freedom of speech and society loses far more than just a debate about Brexit. For those of us in this House who believe that the country is taking a dangerous path without even knowing whether we can turn back, speaking out is not only a right and a responsibility but, surely, it is our duty. That position can feel a little lonely over here, but I do not believe we are appointed to this House merely to troop obediently through the Lobbies.
I believe that it would be damaging to this country, both economically and socially, to leave the EU. Jobs will be lost, particularly in the finance sector, which contributes so heavily to the Exchequer. In fact, the exit is already beginning. Manufacturing will move. Yes, we are hearing about investments now, but for every investment that is being trumpeted many others are being put on hold or have even been abandoned already. Talent will migrate. Top scientists and academics are already voicing concerns about joining organisations in the UK. Perhaps they see themselves as citizens of the world, a concept despised by the Prime Minister but not by those who prefer a global vision to narrow nationalism. Would it be so surprising if the UK’s now perceived hostility to foreigners led these people to conclude that they might be more at home elsewhere? The stock market may look reassuring now, but that is no guide to how investors rate the prospects for UK plc. I fear that, a year from now, the economy will be looking distinctly less healthy.
I acknowledge that in June last year there was a majority vote advising the Government to leave the EU. Hence it is only right that we begin that process by triggering Article 50, but only if we do so with due caution. Whatever the various motivations people had for casting their ballot, I believe that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely right when he said that they did not vote to become poorer. So it is crucial that there should be a vote on the terms.
Instead, the Government seem to be adopting a “University Challenge” type approach: “I’ve started, so I’ll finish”. However, while that might work for a quiz show, it is not the way to deal with the future of this country. The terms of our suggested departure from the EU must be put to Parliament in a meaningful vote. Where is the sovereignty of Parliament if that is denied? There must also be a referendum to determine whether it is the will of the people to leave on those terms. Why would any dedicated Brexiteer object to that, unless they feared that the terms would be unacceptable to a majority? Without this protection, I cannot support the Bill.
The right honourable Margaret Beckett was able to say that she believed that the potential consequences of the Bill are “catastrophic”, but that she would vote for it. I cannot do that. How on earth could I explain, let alone justify, such behaviour to a granddaughter whom I truly believe will be better off if Britain stays in the EU?
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, with whom I agree on many points. Making speeches is what we do, but this is certainly one speech I never wanted to have to make; not because I am still angry and upset that we have decided to leave the EU; not because I am a bad loser, as my leave friends might suggest; and not because I believe that leaving is the biggest mistake we have made as a country in modern times; but because we have prioritised issues of immigration—some valid, others definitely not—over the future strength of our economy; and because of the profoundly damaging effect that this decision will have on millions of vulnerable people in this country, possibly for decades to come.
Some 45 years of our country standing shoulder to shoulder with Europe, through good and bad times, have meant that our trade, our jobs, our aspirations for a cleaner world, our research and scientific activities, our rights at work, including our maternity rights, our safer goods and consumer protection, and our sense of security have become enmeshed with those of our fellow Europeans. In those 45 years, the UK has become immeasurably better off. That is why we joined Europe in the first place and, incidentally, why Mrs Thatcher was so keen to be godmother to the single market once we were in. Yet we are about to see those years of co-operation unravel as we go forward with the great divorce—what a great shame as we set out to unravel more than 7,000 pieces of legislation, statutory instruments, agency contracts and countless other decisions.
So we come to the decision of the Supreme Court of 24 January. The wording of the court’s judgment is quite stark and weighty. I will quote—briefly, your Lordships will be glad to know—what the court said:
“The 2016 referendum is of great political significance. However, its legal significance is determined by what Parliament included in the statute authorising it, and that statute simply provided for the referendum to be held without specifying the consequences. The change in the law required to implement the referendum’s outcome must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by legislation”.
Now we have the Supreme Court’s judgment, it is interesting to reflect that it would have been entirely possible for a majority of the electorate to have voted remain and for the Government subsequently to have brought forward legislation, as they are doing now, to trigger an Article 50 exit. Lewis Carroll himself could not have invented a better referendum: none will have prizes.
Everyone participating in this legislative exercise of the Bill’s Second Reading—and now that the Government have published the White Paper, which is not so much a starting pistol as a cry for help—must act according to his or her conscience as he or she answers this question: which course of action is best for our country in the light of the referendum result? For as they say in “Game of Thrones”, winter is coming. Inadvertently revealing her frayed nerves, the very first line of the Prime Minister’s introduction to the White Paper reads:
“We do not approach these negotiations expecting failure”.
The truth is, as noble Lords have said tonight, that nobody, including the Prime Minister, knows what to expect because the practical impacts of Brexit cannot be controlled by the UK alone. In addition, Brexit is now a joint venture between the Government and Parliament. Even with luck on our side, the mess can only get messier.
How did it come to pass that the Government, in trying to build a negotiating position, refused to affirm outright that, whatever happens, those EU nationals living here will have an automatic and inviolable right to stay? In effect, the Government are holding them hostage. In all humanity, it should have been our clear national position on the day after the referendum that there would be no question of altering the status of French, Polish, Spanish and other people living here. They are not bargaining chips. But Brexit-think loosens common sense and, I am afraid, sometimes common decency.
The Brexit Minister has listed the 12 pillars of our national position in the forthcoming negotiations—the 12 pillars of Hercules. I will try to sum one of them up: “Let’s leave the Common Market but then see if we can reinvent it under another name”. We are effectively saying to our European partners, “It’ll be OK if we leave one day and then come back the next wearing a new hat”.
Some people got euphoric about the resounding Article 50 vote in the House of Commons. Kenneth Wolstenholme used to say “They think it’s all over”. In fact, it has hardly begun and this match will be played over many years, in many stadiums, through many different competitions and with many changing team sheets and shifts in tactics. To those outside this House who say that the House of Lords has no right to amend the Bill, I say: “Stop threatening us and let us get on with our constitutional duty, the one we all try to carry out every day—to act and speak and vote responsibly, according to our consciences and in the best interests of the United Kingdom”. That is what we will do, my Lords.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I follow two speakers, the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Crawley, who have explained extremely effectively the problems that Brexit will bring.
Our country voted by 52% to 48% to leave the European Union and in one sense, that is a clear result. However, of the 52% who voted to leave, a number did so in the expectation that we would revert to a Norway-style arrangement, or something similar to it, which would continue to give access to the single market. Indeed, the Conservative Party encouraged that view. In its general election manifesto in 2015, it said that there should be “an in-out referendum” and promised to honour the result. It also said that a Conservative Government would,
“safeguard British interests in the Single Market”.
The manifesto suggested that we could stay in it with the words:
“We say: yes to the Single Market”.
So why do the Government now interpret the result as a vote for a hard Brexit in which we leave the single market and the customs union, with all the dangers that will inevitably lead to? I submit that there is no majority in our country for a hard Brexit. The referendum result was a decision to leave the EU, but it was not a decision on exactly what should happen next.
In opening this Second Reading debate the Leader of the House said that,
“a good deal will be one that works for all parts of”,
the United Kingdom. I agree with that aim, but I wonder how this will be done when the Prime Minister has put issues of immigration and justice ahead of protecting our economy and jobs, which need access to the single market and the customs union to maximise both our exports and our inward investment.
My name is attached to an amendment tabled for Committee in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, that asks for an assessment to be undertaken of the impact of Brexit on the economy of the north-east of England before Article 50 is triggered. The same principle could of course apply to all parts of the UK because it is vital that the Government understand that different parts of the UK are not the same in their dependency on the EU for manufacturing exports and jobs. The north-east of England needs access to overseas markets for its products: 58% of the north-east’s exports go to the European Union. Leaving the single market and the customs union will put that huge success at risk. What do the Government plan to do to secure continued private sector inward investment in the north-east of England, and across the whole of the UK, once we have left and given up the free trade agreement we already have with the other 27 countries of the European Union?
Just one generation ago, some 6 million people worked in manufacturing in this country. There are under half that number today, with many people forced instead to work in low-productivity jobs with low pay and insecure terms and conditions of service. How will Brexit help the poorer parts of the UK to improve productivity and drive growth when investment in higher value jobs will be put at risk? I have come to the conclusion that the Government are not in control of events. They seem to think their role now is just to administer a hard Brexit when most people in this country want them to show leadership by negotiating a soft Brexit.
Probably the most vacuous political slogan I have heard in recent times is that “Brexit means Brexit”. If that means we have to fall back on World Trade Organization rules, it is very bad news for regions with manufacturing exports that benefit from zero tariffs to the EU. The Prime Minister is on record as wanting a frictionless system of exporting. That is not what the Government are actually doing as they remove us from the single market and the customs union. Huge friction will result from our departure from the European Union.
For all these reasons, I have concluded that a final decision on whether to accept the terms negotiated for exiting the EU in two years’ time must be taken by the people, in full knowledge of all the implications, on the advice of Parliament. That is not about reopening the result of the referendum last year but about asking people to confirm that the actual terms of Brexit are satisfactory to them.
Voters gave the Government a sense of direction last year by voting to leave the EU, but they did not say what they wanted the Government to negotiate in its place—so they should have the right to confirm, or not to confirm, what the Government achieve from their forthcoming negotiation. The EU is not a perfect institution, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, reminded us, not least in its democratic accountability; it needs major reform. But the problems of today’s world require international solutions. The European Union is a very successful example of close international working and it will not be in our best interests to turn aside from all the advantages that membership has given us. We do not want to promote narrow nationalisms.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Bill we are debating tonight is short but certainly not sweet—at least for a person like myself who voted last June to remain in the European Union. In her Lancaster House speech, the Prime Minister exhorted us to believe that leaving the European Union leads towards a brighter future for our children and our grandchildren. I am sorry to disappoint the Prime Minister, but neither I, nor my children, nor my grandchildren believe that. It remains my view that we will be less prosperous, less secure and less influential in the world than we would have been had we decided to stay in the EU. But that was not the view taken by the majority of those who voted, and I accept, as I have since 24 June, that it would not be proper or correct for this House to frustrate the triggering of Article 50. I only wish that the ardent supporters of Brexit, some of them in this House, would cease denigrating and trying to suppress the views of those who think as I do. That surely is as undemocratic an approach as you can get.
While the Lancaster House speech and the White Paper which followed it have lifted a small part of the veil in which the Government have shrouded their policy since the referendum, we have not yet seen more than a glimpse of its ankle, and we have not been given a single metric or impact assessment on the choices the Government have already made and are preparing to make more of. Not a figure has emerged setting out the various options and costing them as those published last March, from which the new Government have resiled, are no longer valid. There has been no word about the shape of the new immigration regime, the altar on which our membership of the single market is to be sacrificed, and no hint of how the Government propose to sustain the common travel area with Ireland and to avoid the reimposition of border controls on goods moving between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The Government assure us that they have been conducting detailed studies of all these matters, and on every part of the economy, but they have not shown us the results of any of those studies—perhaps the results are just too alarming to be shown. We are really being asked to buy a pig in a poke.
What can one say about the choices the Government have made already? It was surely unwise to make a pre-emptive decision to leave the single market before we had any idea of what alternatives might be negotiable. Issues relating to freedom of movement are under great stress at the moment within the European Union. Might it not have been better to see how much flexibility could be available in 18 months’ time, rather than to decide now that we were not going to even look for that flexibility? As for the customs union, if our partners can understand what the Government said in the White Paper, they are better at reading runes than I am.
It is helpful that the Government have now begun to face up to the fact that we need a dispute settlement procedure as part of our new partnership—although they have not, I have to say, got very far. It is truly staggering that a Government who accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, of the International Criminal Court, of the European Court of Human Rights, of the dispute settlement procedures of the World Trade Organization and of the Law of the Sea should have conceived such a horror of the European Court of Justice, despite the fact that the court has often in the last 44 years handed down judgments of great benefit to this country, such as striking down restrictive practices and dealing with illegal state aid and non-tariff barriers to trade. Of course it has made judgments during that time which we did not like—but so, of course, does our own Supreme Court, as the Government have discovered quite recently.
Faced with this paucity of information and this degree of obfuscation, what can and should we do when we look at the Bill in detail? The most important thing is to ensure that, when a deal is struck, or when it is clear that one cannot be struck, both Houses are seized of the outcome in a timely manner, enabling them to make decisions and to avoid that cliff edge which the Prime Minister, quite rightly, wishes to avoid. Some assurances have been given to this effect in the other place, but they are fairly vague and are no doubt capable of any amount of subsequent misleading description and use. Provisions on this point clearly need to go into the Bill—and, since the Government have conceded the principle, it should not be too difficult to do that.
I have one concluding thought. The UK needs to concentrate on the positive aspects of its vision for a new partnership to establish that prospect of mutual benefit without which any hope of a positive outcome for negotiations will simply not materialise. The Government have begun to do this on foreign policy and European security, on scientific co-operation and on law enforcement and internal security—but so far in far too tentative and hesitant a way. We need to face outwards, towards our past and future partners, not backwards towards those who reject everything about the European Union. Our face needs to be a smiling and not a snarling one—particularly to the 3 million citizens from other European countries who live and work here.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, this is not the first time that we have considered this subject, and it is worth remembering that the last time, it was Prime Minister Wilson who decided to hold a referendum, for very similar reasons to those David Cameron had. On behalf of my own firm, I was very keen on joining what is now the European Union in 1975. Exactly like colleagues in this House who are entrepreneurs, I thought it was a great trading area and a great opportunity. I saw a great many of the votes because it took place at Earls Court Olympia, which happened to be part of my company at that time.
I have spent a lot of time in Brussels. I started to go there in 1975—I have been many times since, and, along with many other people here, I have negotiated there. The advantage of a House like this, with its experience, wisdom and knowledge, is that many of us have friends in Brussels in music, art and education, and we share enormous friendship between us. However, what we are discussing today is Brexit. I do not know about anyone else—the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is much better at this than I am—but as far as I am concerned we are taking a view for the next 200 years. We are not taking a view of what is happening in one month’s or two months’ time. If we go back historically, for over 350 years we played the part of power broker between France and Germany.
Someone mentioned foreign policy after World War I. We have not had a foreign policy since almost after World War II. We know what happened at that time, and then what did we do? We won the war with allies but we lost the peace. We also had the terrible situation of having to live with losing an empire at the same time. People forget with the Common Market that between 1960 and 1970 we were in a dreadful mess economically; the great days were over. Those who think that somehow or other it has been sweet running right the way through should look back on the history of that period. I am afraid we reckoned we were a bunch of losers and we would somehow or other be much better off if we got together with Europe. It is only of late, as recently as three Parliaments ago, that a Queen’s Speech said in effect that we must re-engage with the world, which is really the role that we have been playing.
As I say, I have spent a great deal of time in the EU. So have many noble Lords, but I have spent most of my life as a businessman, negotiating right the way through. Looking practically at these negotiations, the role that the Government are playing is quite right. We must remember that the Prime Minister made the comment that we want to finish off by dealing with partners. I hate the word “deal”. You negotiate with partners and friends; you do not do deals with them because you want more ongoing business with them in the years to come. Therefore a clean break—pulling right out of the internal market, which is not a single market—gives one a much better position from which to negotiate for the future.
People always talk about “European citizens”. They do not exist. There is no such thing as a European citizen; there are citizens of nation states. You are a citizen of one of 28 states, not a citizen of Europe. That is often forgotten. Ultimately, the only thing I have ever believed in looking back historically is that if you do not have economic strength, you have no strength anywhere. The collapse of the USSR demonstrated that in spades.
I came out publicly during the referendum because Michael Gove and Boris Johnson said to me, “Plenty of politicians are speaking but no industrialists. Will you come out publicly and say why you are going to be doing what you’re doing?” I truly believe that we have a great opportunity with the rest of the world. My own company, which has been around for nearly 200 years, has been operating in the Far East since about 1840. There is no novelty in doing business out there.
When I told friends that I was going to vote for Brexit, I was almost ostracised. People had a real go at me at dinner parties, saying, “What the hell are you doing?”, so I told them how I felt about it. But what is very interesting is that now that time has gone by, friends in the City, in business and in major companies, one after the other, are saying, “I think we can handle this. I think there are ways in which we can change it”. I happen to know that in some ways, in areas such as the container trade, transport and tourism, it is going to be even better for us. We will increasingly see an attitude of, “Let’s get on with it. We’re doing it for the very long run”. I make the observation that I think it is the right thing to show our friends in Europe—I use the word “friends”—that we really mean change, and we are going to do it.
Let me read something to noble Lords:
“The EU’s founders grew up through depression, war and occupation”.
On that, I have the advantage of my age. I was born in the depression and I certainly grew up in a time of war, but we were not occupied. If we had been, I would have been dust.
“Their successors, who did not, must now think afresh about the continent and its needs. The past holds an important lesson: integration prospered when growth and employment mattered more than unfettered capital movements and when fiscal policy counted for more than monetary policy. Today’s leaders will also need to discover something of the farsightedness of earlier generations. Like them, they will need to show that the union can help nations, not hurt them, and that capitalism and democracy can be reconciled. This time they have to do it in a globalising world and in a union with five times more members than the original group. It will take a real effort of historical imagination and reinvention. But without it, the EU is living on borrowed time”.
That was written by Professor Mazower, who is a professor of history at Columbia University in the United States.
In the long term, we will be able to live happily with Europe—and defend it, as we did in 1940 and onwards; defence is a huge factor. I would like to feel that it will be able to reinvent itself and we will all get on together in the centuries to come, not next month.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I follow the themes picked up by my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Whitty and Lady Crawley. They have all drawn attention to the fallacy whereby the Prime Minister seems to believe—we have to assume she believes it—that there is no alternative to where she is heading and, in particular, that this includes leaving the internal market.
Many political leaders over the years have used the phrase, “There is no alternative”, but in this case it is a tautology. Of course there is no alternative for Mrs May to the package that she brings back to Westminster. There is something tautological about the way this whole argument is going.
I ask the Minister, who is expert in all these matters and in pulling rabbits out of a hat: have the Government really not done a cost-benefit analysis in turn on each of the models of trade—tariffs and so on? That has been done by the EU Sub-Committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Whitty, in its report on trade options. As my noble friend pointed out, it concluded that the option for Britain that is least disruptive to trade and most favoured by industrialists was the EEA option. It so happens that I have tabled an amendment on that, for a week today in Committee, which would entail staying in the single market on particular terms until adjustment of freedom of movement meant that we could rejoin EFTA—but that is for next week.
The Government have got themselves into considerable confusion because they believe a lot of the wilder, more extreme rhetoric of their Brexit supporters: that Britain, somehow uniquely, wants to be involved in world trade and that there is a contradiction between that and being involved in European trade. I do not know whether it has occurred to people who press this point that Germany is the most successful exporter in world and the German share of world trade—or the world market share, as the Germans call it, which we are also interested in—is handled very effectively by the Germans both in Europe and in the rest of the world. There is no contradiction between the two.
On the internal market, there is the idea that it is all useless, obstructive regulation. The point has been made: how do you expect trains to run on all the different European railway systems unless there is one system of signalling? That example can be used, along with many others.
Then, there is the question of the future of workers in this country. Why do people think that, to achieve this so-called frictionless market—which we actually have at the moment—we need to spend some $60 billion? Why do we not stay in this market? Is that not exactly what Vauxhall, Nissan and the aerospace industry are telling the Government, let alone those in the labour movement, in financial services and so on? There are a lot of myths about the “working class”—a term that people have been telling me for many years is out of date and no longer exists. Now I am told it does exist, and that people who voted to leave have an angst about the modern world. The slogan which fits the experience is: “Stop the world, I want to get off”. I do not know whether you can stop the world but it is jolly difficult to get off.
We have a problem with involving people. I was a member of the Bullock committee on industrial democracy, and in the last 30 years we have lost the idea that the average worker should be heavily involved in strategic issues such as world market share and that the main goal of the organised worker should be to see that their company and industry can increase its world market share.
In conclusion, we would have a better explanation of how the so-called great repeal Bill relates to the negotiations if we had a cost-benefit analysis of all the different trade options, rather than being told that there is no alternative.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the great achievement of Europe in the last 72 years has been to change the pattern of history—from constant wars, pogroms and the like to peace throughout western and central Europe. I want to start with a plea to Ministers that when they start on the difficult negotiation that will be triggered in March, they should not for one moment lose sight of the importance of sustaining peace and security in Europe. To me that is far more important than the single market or the customs union, for our very survival depends on it.
I am one of the lucky ones. My father, who was born in 1904, was first a refugee in 1915 when he was evacuated from his native eastern Poland as the Russians laid a scorched earth policy across the territory. He spent three years as a refugee in Vienna. He next was a refugee on 20 June 1940, when a collier carried him from La Rochelle ultimately to Glasgow where he became a refugee in the United Kingdom and remained for the rest of his life.
My mother was a refugee. She defected from her job in the Polish foreign service in 1946 to come to Britain and marry my father. So I have had the great good fortune of my family being treated with great generosity by the United Kingdom—a refugee family which, I hope, has given good service to this country throughout the couple of generations that have followed.
Even before we were members of the European Union—and I do not suggest that our membership is a key to the peace and security of Europe—we helped to establish those institutions, the European Coal and Steel Community and the EEC, which gave Europe the stability that it has had up to this time. I do not think for one moment that we should lose sight of that.
I turn to the technicalities of the Bill. My view has been stated by many others of the 56 noble Lords who have spoken in the debate before me, not least by my noble friend Lord Hannay. I believe that the plebiscite—the referendum—changes the dynamics by which we consider the Bill. We do not just have a Bill, we also have a plebiscite. My judgment is that it would be irresponsible, and even unconstitutional, of the House to refuse a Second Reading. If we refuse a Second Reading, or insist on any significant amendments, we will be creating a turmoil and a challenge between the public and Parliament that will bring it into even greater disrepute than it is already. That is this chapter. In this chapter, we have to allow the Bill to go through, if necessary unamended.
Then comes the next chapter. The Government have given a welcome undertaking,
“that both Houses of Parliament would be given a vote on the withdrawal arrangements and the UK’s future relationship with the European Union before any agreement was concluded”.
That is a direct quotation from a document issued by the Library of the House. I would love to see more clarity as to what it means.
More importantly, if, when Article 50 has been triggered and the negotiations completed, it is the opinion of Parliament that the arrangements are disproportionately adverse to the national interest, that is no longer the responsibility of the referendum of last June. Nor should we ask for a further referendum, which sounds to me awfully like liking punishment and wanting more. If we judge as a Parliament in both Houses that the arrangements agreed are to the detriment of the national interest compared with the alternatives, or if they endanger security in Europe, at that point we will be properly informed as to what has been discussed. We will be properly informed as to what has been provisionally agreed, and we will then be exercising our constitutional role, if it be the case that what is agreed is unsatisfactory, in rejecting it. That seems the correct constitutional analysis.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on the professional, cautious and polite way in which they have managed Brexit proceedings. It is no surprise that the Prime Minister clearly has a substantial proportion of the country behind her. We all know that this is a short, very simple Bill about enabling the Prime Minister to give the European Commission notice of our intent to quit. I therefore ask myself why there have been so many speeches—and so many speeches to come—in both our Houses. What it is about is this: all my lifetime the big political issue, which was often lurking and not discussed, has been the right relationship between the UK and Europe. For 20 years I said to Conservative friends that this should not just be pushed into the corner; it needed to be faced up to and addressed. They would often say: “No one is interested in it: they care about the National Health Service”. I always said: “Give them the opportunity to be interested and you will be amazed”. Look what happened: people were eventually given a referendum and we had a turnout that we had not even seen at a general election.
That is why both Houses of Parliament have reflected the wish of people to express their own thoughts and perceptions about our relationship with Europe. I am pleased that none of the opposition political parties intends to disrupt and frustrate the calling of Article 50. It would be clearly inappropriate to do so—tantamount to telling citizens that they did not know what they were doing and being offensive towards them. I voted Brexit because I objected to the gradual removal of the democracy we had spent 1,000 years establishing. However, the obvious, huge issue for the EU going forward is the terrible mistake of adopting the euro. If you try to share the same currency among very different economic areas, particularly with no transfer payments, you will eventually get an explosion. In 1988, I wrote a book called All You Need to Know About Exchange Rates. Even then I made the point that, unless Italy had the steam valve of being able to devalue periodically, a financial collapse there would lead to the destruction of what people were trying to build. That is still the great risk facing us.
Everyone knows that the referendum was an entirely legitimate way of seeking the view of citizens and that it was intended that the Government would follow whichever way the people voted. However, I have never had a satisfactory answer to the big question of why, unlike the PR referendum, its result was not legally binding. It is a rather strange situation: everyone understood that the Government would do whatever people voted for, but there was no requirement so to do. That has, to some extent, caused problems. It is correct that Parliament should authorise the Prime Minister to go ahead and activate Article 50. One thing I have always been uncomfortable about in the way the EU has pushed a lot of law into our legal system is the use of the royal prerogative. I would have found it rather ironic if the prerogative had been used by the Brexit camp. I was pleased and surprised at the 384 majority in the Commons. That reflected, first, the fact that no one wanted to be seen to be thwarting the will of the people and, secondly, the popularity of the May Government. I think that people are quite clear that the Bill is not about whether we leave or not—the vote was about that—but is about enabling the Prime Minister to implement people’s wishes as expressed in the referendum.
There is an irony in that the judicial review that the remain camp sought and achieved has actually served to, if anything, strengthen the Government’s position. It is also somewhat ironic that the supporters of remain have argued that they were keen on parliamentary democracy here, but they have been fairly happy for it to have been eroded by the EU over the past 30 or 40 years. Those supporting leave have supported the democratic cause but part of the whole process of having this vote is to fall in with the parliamentary case.
We are where we are: we all know that this Bill is just about the mechanics. It has to be successful for Article 50 to be activated. It also has this extraordinary involvement of Euratom. I read with interest the Library’s comments on it, where it seems to take the view that the legal cases on the one side or the other are equally strong and that it was, therefore, safer to include Euratom rather than to ignore it. I am also pleased that the Commons voted 6:1 to put the Brexit decision directly into the hands of voters and it has been the correct decision. Finally, there has always been a lack of clarity over Article 50 and it is, perhaps, a good thing that that has been resolved.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, compared with when we started nearly seven hours ago, we are a bit thin on the ground. However, we make up for it in quality, tenacity and, of course, fortitude. Let me put my cards on the table: I remain totally opposed to Brexit. I am not going to throw in the towel: if we go ahead, it will be a total disaster economically, socially and in every other way, and it was sold on a false prospectus. I will oppose it by any legal and constitutional means. As my noble friend Lady Crawley said, we have a long, long way to go. I say to the Ministers on the Front Bench in particular—and I am not threatening them in any way because all six of them are good friends of mine; I hope that does not do them any harm—you ain’t seen nothing yet.
We are just at the beginning of the beginning. We still have the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading, and then, of course, we have the great repeal Bill and, I am told, at least 7,500 statutory instruments to be dealt with as a result of that. That is going to keep this House busy with a lot of scrutiny, and I am sure that we will do it properly. Of course, there are a lot of hurdles ahead: we have heard about Northern Ireland; no one has mentioned in detail the problems relating to Scotland. I know there are one or two members of the Front Bench who know some of the problems there. We have heard about the need for approval by 27 national parliaments and the European Parliament. It is a long, long way to go, and there is many a slip ‘twixt cup and lip.
Today, however, I just want to concentrate on one thing very seriously, and that is our form of parliamentary democracy. I was in the other place for 26 years, so I am very sensitive about our parliamentary democracy. Winston Churchill said:
“We believe Members of Parliament are representatives, and not delegates”.
He also said:
“We believe that Governments are the guides as well as the servants of the nation”.
Therefore, Governments should give the lead. I liked a quotation from Edmund Burke, to the effect that,
“a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and … most seriously to consider”,
the opinion of his constituents. But,
“authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,—these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land”.
That was Edmund Burke. That is our parliamentary democracy. We do not have a direct democracy here in the United Kingdom; we have a parliamentary democracy. That is why I was disappointed in the debate in the House of Commons, where they ought to know better.
I was going to mention that someone said, “This Brexit is going to be a total disaster, but I’m going to vote for it”. Incidentally, I have the greatest of respect for them. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, outed that person earlier on, so I cannot be blamed for doing that. However, when these Members of the House of Commons took the decision, did they think about their judgment and their conscience, or did they just feel that they had to do what they believed the referendum told them to do?
Let us look at that referendum. First, as others have said, it was advisory. All pre-legislative referenda are advisory. The only one that has not been advisory is the AV referendum, post-legislation, where we knew exactly what we were voting for, and thankfully, we voted it down. In addition, 16 and 17 year-olds were not allowed to vote, as they were in Scotland. Some of them are 18 now, and all of them will be 18 if we finish these negotiations. Some of the old cod—oh! I am chair of Age Scotland, so I had better be careful. I should say some of the elderly people who voted against remaining are, sadly, no longer with us. That is one of the ironies. EU citizens, who work in this country in the health service and the financial sector, were not allowed to vote. They are taxpayers. Whatever happened to “no taxation without representation”? They are being taxed, but they were not able to say anything.
On the threshold, which my noble friend Lord Rooker, and the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Norton, raised on earlier occasions when we discussed this, it was 40% in the first Scottish referendum, yet this referendum was supported by only 37% of the electorate. It would not have got through if we had had the Cunningham amendment. Even—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will know this very well—for Muirfield golf club to admit women, it has to have a two-thirds majority. We are making a major change to the United Kingdom constitution, not just a question of admitting women.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am sorry—that was of course implicit in what I said. Finally, there were the lies on which Brexit was sold, not just different interpretations of the facts which we get at general elections, but manifest lies. I will not go into that in more detail.
I will finish with a little story, which goes back to my original point about parliamentary sovereignty. Many years ago, when I was an MP for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, we were having a vote in the House of Commons to change the law on abortion. I am not a religious person and I did not feel strongly about it one way or another. I therefore went to my constituency party—we had a large turnout, with more than 100 people—and I told them that I did not feel strongly about it and asked them for their advice. We had a fantastic debate, which lasted over two hours, and it was about 50:50. However, they resolved unanimously to leave it to me, their elected representative, to listen to the arguments and decide how to vote. That is parliamentary democracy for you. If we do not stick to that, not just the House of Lords will be redundant but the House of Commons as well.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I am pleased to say that, although I do not always agree with him, I agreed with every word that he said.
I want to focus on two things, involving two people: the Prime Minster and the First Minister of Scotland. Before the referendum, Theresa May was billed as a reluctant remainer—but a remainer. Since the referendum she has become an enthusiastic Brexiteer leading a Government barely distinguishable from UKIP. The referendum was conducted on both sides in a climate of misinformation. A Government elected with under 37% of the vote on a 66% turnout, under a Prime Minister who was not the leader of the party or an obvious prime ministerial candidate at the last election, have decided that their interpretation of the result should be sovereign—even trying to exclude Parliament from the process.
How dare they lecture us about democracy? As Ken Clarke said, had the result gone narrowly the other way—or even substantially the other way—the Brexiteers would not have stayed quiet but now would be in full cry for a rerun, as are the nationalists in Scotland, who also pledged that this was a once-in-a-generation vote. For the Prime Minister to say, definitively, that the people have voted to leave the single market, all or part of the customs union and the European Court of Justice, as well as—and probably more importantly—other institutions of the EU, is a denial of democracy and an abrogation of leadership.
Let me turn to Scotland. Before the independence referendum, the SNP declared that it was a once-in-a-generation vote. Unfortunately for Mr Alex Salmond, he said that on television and it is being broadcast every day on Facebook. Yet now the SNP is threatening another referendum, despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to run one. The circumstances have changed as a result of the EU referendum. They sure have—but not in a way that makes Scottish independence a better option. The SNP traded on the slogan “Independence in Europe” for decades. However, that was based on the assumption that the UK would remain a member of the EU. For Scotland now to leave the UK, for an uncertain future, is anything but appealing. That probably explains why the prospect of a second referendum is unpopular in Scotland and why the likely outcome looks no different from the result before.
Let us face reality. The idea that Scotland can remain in the EU as a residual part of the UK as the rest of the UK leaves is pure fantasy and cannot happen legally or politically—whatever Elmar Brok, in his mischievous way, may wish to think. The independence campaign failed most especially on its inability to give any credible steer on the currency that an independent Scotland would use and the ensuing friction and uncertainty in terms of engaging with the rest of the UK. That problem would be repeated in spades, should Scotland choose to leave the UK without an agreement on using the pound, which would anyway belie the concept of independence. Even allowing for the fact that Scotland, as part of the UK, has already adopted the acquis, it does not meet any of the essential fiscal criteria. It has no currency, no central bank and no track record. It stands to inherit an uncertain and unsustainable share of the UK national debt and, outside the UK, would be running a current account deficit that would not meet EU criteria under any circumstances. Even with a benign EU membership, therefore, it would take years in limbo before Scotland could aspire to full membership of the EU. That is even before consideration of the veto rights of the other member states.
As the UK obsesses with Brexit, which it will, Scotland obsesses with independence. Both those obsessions mean that day-to-day life is sacrificed and standards fall in education, health, skills and investment while we engage in this distraction. It is a form of self-destructive, collective insanity. Of course, we will campaign to minimise the damage and prevent the disintegration of our shared values, but it requires voters to turn away from an SNP that puts independence above the real interests of the people of Scotland and to stand up to a UKIP-leaning Conservative Party, which is leading us over a cliff. Every day it becomes more apparent than ever that more of our daily activities are threatened—culture, science, research, environment protection and workers’ rights are all now in the mix.
Now Brexiteers want to decorate their own Christmas tree. At the weekend we were told that we should use our aid budget to sweeten the trade deal by spending it in Europe and not Africa. How hard-faced to take money away from the poorest in Africa and south Asia to try to win votes from eastern European member states. How despicable. No doubt this will also mean as we proceed in this that we will not speak out on human rights abuses in all the countries that have problems and with which we are trying to negotiate trade and investment deals. I hear it in Iran; I hear it in Burma: “Soft pedal. Don’t upset them. We may want a trade deal. Don’t stand up for British citizens. Don’t stand up for human rights”. In other words, our long-held and proud liberal values risk being traded away for Brexit. Not if I can help it.
Lord Elis-Thomas (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow my former colleague from down the Corridor and to hear him speak so eloquently on human rights issues, on which I fully agree with him. I will not engage with his comments on the internal affairs of Scotland but I will speak about the consequences of this Bill in relation to the internal structure of the United Kingdom and the relationships between the existing and emerging devolved institutions in relation to mainland Europe.
Obviously I agree that the Bill as it stands does not contain a provision which gives rise to the need for any legislative consent motion on the part of any of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies—but its implications and the developing negotiation position are matters that have profound concerns for all of the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament, and for the Administrations and Governments. That was recognised most recently by the Welsh Government’s White Paper. As noble Lords can see, White Papers emerging from the Welsh Government seem to have a different cover from the White Papers that emerge from the UK Government—they are red rather than white. I do not know the reason for that; I will have to ask the First Minister.
The Welsh Government White Paper emphasises clearly the constitutional situation we are now in. The section on constitutional and devolution issues states:
“Withdrawal from the EU represents a fundamental constitutional change for Wales and the UK as a whole. Returning to pre-1973 practice is simply not an option since devolution was not then part of the UK’s political structure”.
I am not sure whether the implications of this have been clearly understood even within the departments of the UK Government. We are not talking about repatriating legislation currently with the European Union simply to this House—because how can it be argued that European legislation, which is the basis of Scottish legislation, Northern Ireland legislation and detailed constitutional practice, should somehow need to be filtered through this House before it is patriated by those devolved legislatures which are part of the structure of the United Kingdom?
The Leader of the House referred in passing to the role of the devolved Administrations. However, it is not only a matter of engagement. We are emerging equal constitutional partners in this United Kingdom and, in a sense, there is a parallel between what is happening in the process between the United Kingdom and the European Union and the process already in place within the United Kingdom in relation to devolution. That is why I am not as distressed as some of my colleagues about the changes on mainland Europe, but I am concerned that the United Kingdom authorities understand that in the coming negotiations the devolved Administrations, Assemblies and Parliaments are not just institutions to whom something may be reported when the UK Government decide that it is appropriate.
The whole question of the Joint Ministerial Committee mechanisms now has to be faced urgently before we can have a proper negotiation that involves the whole of the United Kingdom. These JMC mechanisms were created for a different purpose—to ensure regular discussions between Ministers about sharing policy and dealing with cross-border issues. Indeed, a very distinguished former UK civil servant has said that the JMC machinery was more of a talking shop for the exchange of information and was not created as a decision-making body with powers.
To make negotiation effective—unless the UK Government believe that it is appropriate for them to take control of the whole negotiation—there has to be a way in which devolved Administrations can be a part of the negotiation structure. Otherwise, at the end of that process, the peoples of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—as we have heard already very eloquently from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames—will feel increasingly isolated from the activities of the UK Government.
We estimate that there are 5,000 pieces of legislation currently in force in devolved areas, which would need to be re-evaluated as a result of the negotiations that will change our relationship with the European Union. Not even the great repeal Bill will be able to deal with all of that. How many pieces of subordinate legislation would we be faced with in the National Assembly for Wales to deal with it? I am out of time—but so, soon, may be this Government, if they do not understand the issues that I have been explaining.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, just for the record, I have not been on this Bench all day but I heard the first dozen speeches from the side of the Throne, some from the Bar and others from my office.
There are only two speeches one can make in this debate—either we accept the decision of the people and let this Bill pass or we substitute our judgment for that of the electorate and the Commons. I submit that your Lordships’ expert opinions—and my inexpert opinion—on whether the UK should leave or remain in the EU and whether or not it is good or bad for the UK are utterly irrelevant. The decision is not ours as parliamentarians to make or to second-guess. The Bill before us today simply provides for the outcome of the referendum to be respected.
It was made very clear in the debate on the referendum Bill and by the Government during the referendum period that the decision rested with the people and that the Government would implement, without question, whatever the people decided. It was not the case that the Government would implement the decision of the people only if Parliament approved the referendum result. Nor was it the case that we would only leave if we stayed in the single market or customs union. Indeed, when Vote Leave suggested that we could still leave and access the single market, the then Prime Minister and all government and remain spokesmen denounced that. They said it was absolutely clear that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market and customs union—we could not have our cake and eat it. So it is simply disingenuous to suggest that Parliament has a right to determine whether or not we should leave the EU—the questions of the single market and customs union were not on the ballot paper.
The House will know that my right honourable friend Sir Oliver Letwin MP was one of the Government’s foremost remain campaigners and was the Prime Minister’s chief guru, thinker and adviser on these matters. He said in the other place on 31 January at the Bill’s Second Reading:
“I made it perfectly clear … that … an inevitable consequence of leaving the EU would be leaving the single market ... and we would have to leave the customs union … It seems to me … that the people voting to leave were voting with their eyes wide open, knowing that the consequences might be our falling back on the WTO”.—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/17; col. 871]
We are leaving the EU and it does not depend on whether or not we in this House or anyone else likes or agrees with the final terms. Of course we want a good deal, but the decision of the electorate was to leave whether we get a good deal, however defined, or no deal at all. We will have nothing to be afraid of when we are a free, independent nation once again. The Bank of England almost every other week upgrades our growth forecast for this year. Last May it forecast that Brexit would cause a recession, but in August that growth would be up to 0.8%, then in November that growth would be up to 1.4%. Two weeks ago, it forecast growth at 2%. We have the same old project fear tunes from the IMF as well. Many remainers say—I have heard it today—that the majority to leave the EU was very small. I say that many millions more would have voted to leave if the Bank of England, Her Majesty’s Treasury, 600 dodgy economists and the IMF had not blitzed the referendum campaign with a co-ordinated series of financial scares, dodgy forecasts and the old project fear. We would have had a massive majority if they had told us what they are telling us now, not what they were telling us then.
There are many experts in this House who know about the EU and trade. I do not pretend to have any of that expertise, but I know a little about the British electorate and the firestorm we will unleash if we seek to thwart them. I faced the British electorate seven times in the past and have been elected six times—I should say that I lost the first one. I have been in general elections where my party got a thumping majority and where we were thrown out by an even bigger majority. Like it or not, I believe the public got it about right on those occasions. They also got it right on 23 June last year.
I say to your Lordships—particularly those who have not been Members of Parliament—that you have no idea of the destruction we would create if we went against the decision of the electorate now. We cannot use the excuse that we are fulfilling our usual role of tidying up messy Commons legislation or simply scrutinising it. There is nothing in this tiny little Bill to scrutinise. It came to us from the Commons with a huge majority. If it were to be amended it should have been done in the other place, but the Commons did not amend it. If we seek to do so it will be perceived by those outside as deliberate sabotage of the will of the people, no matter how much we try to dress it up as improvement or scrutiny. The amendments are nothing to do with scrutiny. They are an attempt to build in conditions and tie the Prime Minister’s hands.
The Government have agreed to give Parliament a say on the withdrawal deal and our future relationship with the EU before the European Parliament votes on it. It is absolutely right that parliamentarians should not be able to use this vote to demand further negotiations with Brussels in an effort to keep us in the EU by the back door. If the EU knows that there may be further negotiation after the initial agreement is made, that will incentivise it to give us a bad deal in the first place.
Finally, I have no intention of criticising the Lib Dems tonight. Indeed, I intend to praise one of them to the heavens. I end by quoting a former Member of Parliament and former leader of the Lib Dems, the spokesman for them early in the morning of Friday 24 June on ITV. The noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, said, with all the passion he can bring to a speech:
“I will forgive no-one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken, whether it is a majority of 1% or 20% … It is our duty as those who serve the public to make sure the country does the best it can with the decision they have taken”.
He went on:
“In. Out. When the British people have spoken you do what they command … Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. When democracy speaks we obey. All of us do”.
What has changed?
If this House tries to sabotage the Bill by building in amendments on the single market, the customs union or the end deal, then forget about the press criticism of the judges. The criticism will be of us and we will be called the real enemy of the people. We will unleash demons which will not be controlled. This House will be destroyed and we will have turmoil on the streets. All the latest opinion polls show that the mood among the public, even those who voted remain, is to get on with it and get on with it now. That is good advice and I suggest we follow it.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I will confine myself to the legal process in the triggering of Article 50 and whether the rule of law—which the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, dealt with meaningfully—and the judiciary have been damaged.
I do not dispute the individual’s right to litigate, nor the Government’s right to appeal. My concern is with the fall-out and the Government’s machinery for legal advice. The Government’s legal advisers are the law officers, and their tasks are difficult. They have to speak truth unto power in the face of occasional, strong political pressures, particularly from Downing Street which has its own political agenda. Lady Justice Hallett demonstrated this in her report into the on-the-runs Irishmen.
There is a strong convention that neither the Attorney’s legal advice is disclosed, nor whether it was sought. However, it would be an immense advantage in these exceptional circumstances if we knew whether the advice of the Attorney was sought, particularly as to whether an appeal should have been made to the Supreme Court. The Divisional Court, under the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, delivered a masterly judgment in a very short time. This should be a template for the future in form and substance. In the gap between the court’s judgment and the appeal, the pundits were more and more saying that the Government might well lose the appeal. Did the Attorney advise on appealing and did he canvass the risks of damage to the judiciary, coincidentally prolonging uncertainty?
When there is a countervailing public interest, exceptionally, the fact of seeking the Attorney’s advice has been disclosed. It was done in the case of the Iraq war. Mr Douglas Hurd, the then Foreign Secretary, also gave a great deal of detail in the Commons on Sir Nicholas Lyell’s advice on aspects of the Maastricht treaty.
After the Divisional Court’s judgment, three national newspapers waded in with excruciating headlines which are not worthy of repeating. We also had detailed analysis of the personal connections of judges of the Supreme Court with Europe and European institutions, written with a view to muddying the waters in so far as their integrity was concerned. At paragraph 197 of the judgment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, said:
“The only issue in dispute is whether the action by the Crown … must be authorised by an Act of Parliament”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was right to remind us of paragraph 123 that the resolution of the House of Commons is just not enough.
In this modern age, the judiciary is called upon time after time—particularly in judicial review cases—to adjudicate on matters with a strong political flavour. I value its role. Did the Cabinet consider the dangers to the judiciary and to the respect for the rule of law in the process of appealing against what many of us thought was a very clear judgment and which was the object of some appalling press comments?
When I was in Cabinet, a long time ago in the 1970s, before the office of Lord Chancellor was downgraded, the Cabinet had the advantage of hearing the views of an experienced and heavyweight Lord Chancellor. Although the Lord Chancellor was not the Cabinet’s legal adviser, no sensible Prime Minister would let him hide his light under a bushel. His views would be welcomed by the Cabinet and by the Attorney. The present Lord Chancellor is not a lawyer, but she has all the legal resources of the Department of Justice, unless these have been dismantled. It would be useful to know what considered advice—if any—she gave the Cabinet. All I know is that she was tardy in carrying out her legal and constitutional duty to defend the judiciary under Section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The House was not impressed by her laboured attempts at the Dispatch Box to defend her delayed comments. There is more to being Lord Chancellor than wearing judicial robes.
I had the temerity to advise the House on 6 July that there was a need for parliamentary approval on two grounds. The first is political, as in going to war. The royal prerogative was outdated for the purpose. The second was that one Act of Parliament giving rights could not be undone by the royal prerogative, but taken away only by another Act of Parliament. I was fortunate to have read the article in the Times by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, to whom we listened with very great respect, was the only noble Lord who disagreed with my second proposition.
In conclusion, although there have been regrettable, unfortunate incidents to the claimant, some of the resident population and others, I am confident that the judiciary and the rule of law are sufficiently resilient.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I support the Bill with the deepest misgivings. Like many others, I remain a remainer and I continue to believe that Brexit will surely impoverish and certainly not enrich this country and, indeed, Europe as a whole—economically, culturally, politically, socially, you name it. Why, then, support it? Not because I am fearful we shall otherwise be abolished—plainly, we will not succumb to bullying of that sort. Indeed, I do not believe we could be abolished, certainly not by invoking the Parliament Acts. Nor do I support the Bill because, as we constantly acknowledge, we are essentially a reviewing and revising Chamber only able occasionally to delay, never to reject, legislation proposed by the elected House.
In this instance it is perfectly plain that the majority in the Commons voted for the Bill, assuming, of course, that they were not indisposed on the night, notwithstanding their opposition to Brexit in principle, either because they were fearful of otherwise disaffecting constituents and losing their seat or—a more generous view—because they felt compelled to give effect to the referendum vote and honour the result. It is that which in the end impels me, too, to support the Bill while at the same time recognising the strength and integrity of the opposing view.
Those minded to reject the Bill may ask, what about the 48% who voted to remain? What of the Brexiteers’ profoundly misleading referendum campaign? What of the obvious disagreement among the 52% majority as to what Brexit actually entails and what are its central aims? What of the absurdity of supposing that the electorate faced a simple, binary choice, so that the course now required to give effect to their vote is perfectly plain? What of the Supreme Court’s decision that the referendum was, after all, in law only advisory? So constitutionally, as parliamentarians, ought we not now to be exercising our own independent best judgments as to whether, after all, to take that advice and pursue Brexit? As I say, I recognise the force of these points, not least cumulatively, but in the end I still believe that they are outweighed by the compelling need to interpret and implement as best we may the referendum result. In short, whatever damage we judge Brexit may do to the national interest in so very many important ways, it is still less than the damage I believe would inevitably be done to the public’s trust in the political process if we were now to thwart the majority vote.
The plain fact—plain at least to me—is that the 52% of Brexiteers included the most politically distrustful and disengaged sections of society. Of course, I do not say that of all Brexiteers; nor do I say that any, or certainly many, would take to the streets violently if we were now to frustrate their success in the referendum vote; but I do say that it would take generations for the public’s confidence in the democratic process to be restored. Of course, there are lessons to be learned from all this: above all that referendums are intrinsically dangerous devices, incompatible with representative liberal democracy. Par excellence that was true of the Brexit referendum, requiring as it did a bare-majority decision on a complex question of the most profound importance, supposedly offering a simple binary choice and realistically offering Parliament no option now but to accept the outcome and embark on this hazardous course of at least initiating the Brexit process.
As for the future, who knows where we and indeed the rest of Europe will be 18 months or two years down the track? For that reason, I am disinclined to support any of the amendments designed to bind the Government at some future point. Least of all should we now bind the Government to a further referendum at the end of the process, at any rate on a bare majority, although one could toy with the idea of perhaps having a referendum requiring a 55% or even 60% majority.
All that said, there are three things I now implore of the Government. The first is a full and immediate assurance to all EU citizens already here before the Brexit vote as to their future, no doubt subject to risks of deportation for criminality and the like but otherwise unconditional. That is the right thing to do. Not entirely coincidentally, it would be the politically and diplomatically astute thing to do. Secondly—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, touched on this—I implore the Government not to adopt an inflexibly doctrinaire approach to severing our links with the European Court of Justice. There is really no room for zealotry with regard to at least some areas of future co-operation in Europe, crime and policing prominent among them. Thirdly and finally, I ask the Government to consult as fully as possible at all stages and listen to the voices of wisdom, experience, expertise and sound judgment, many of which are to be found in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I will begin by outlining my own position. I served as a Member of the European Parliament from 1979 to 2004. I receive a pension from the European and UK Parliaments as a result of that service. I currently chair the European Parliament pension scheme and I am the vice-president of the European Parliament Former Members Association. I hope the Daily Mail will regard that as putting all my interests on the record.
I live in Cambridge, I campaigned for a yes vote, I was active as an officeholder in Cambridge Says Yes, and I did everything I could to get the result I and a pretty large majority of Members of this House wanted. Almost 75% of the voters in Cambridge supported Remain. But overall we lost, I lost, I believe the country lost and in due course I hope leave voters come to realise the foolishness of that decision. For me, it was never a matter of money but of principle: is Britain part of the international polity of institutions or do we, like the United States between the wars, retreat into isolationism? That was the central question. It still is.
In the last few weeks and particularly the last few days, I have received numerous emails from people who to my mind have a very shaky understanding of democracy. It was Clement Attlee who refused to let any provision for referenda enter the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany because, in his view,
“the referendum is a device of dictators and demagogues”.
When we passed the Bill we sold the pass and gave the people the right to decide. They have done so and their decision must be respected. It is no good playing games with numbers. On at least three occasions since the Second World War, the Governments of this country have been decided on smaller margins than this referendum. That is why, although I will take part in the Committee and other stages, I will not be supporting any vote to amend the Bill.
I have been impressed by the responsible and restrained representations I have received from many of the trade unions I deal with. They have legitimate fears and interests. I have communicated them to Ministers. Indeed, today I sent the Minister who is replying to the debate a submission from USDAW, which I am sure he will consider and deal with sympathetically. I am not asking him to deal with it in his reply to the debate. I will seek assurances during this procedure but I realise that the Minister and his colleagues, at the commencement of negotiations, will be circumscribed as to what they can offer. But a general indication of the direction of travel would certainly be welcome.
I now turn to the particular difficulties faced by a large group of public servants: those either currently employed by or the pensioners of European institutions. In the 45-plus years since we joined the EU, thousands of staff and members have worked for its literally dozens of institutions. Everyone has heard of the Commission and most have heard of the Parliament. But do not forget the European Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the Council of Ministers, the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Medicines Agency—based in the UK, of course—and many others.
Encouraged by Her Majesty’s Government and often coached by our representatives in Brussels, people of high calibre have devoted many years of their lives to UK representation in the service of these institutions and to the promotion of a British view of how things are done. The UK Government have sat in on the development of staff conditions and helped matters evolve to the present situation. In his capacity as a Commissioner the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, oversaw a fundamental reform of staff working conditions in the early years of this century. All the way through, the Government have been a party to all the decisions which helped to shape working practices, pensions and benefits. Tied up in these conditions of service are undertakings under the headings of pensions, health, and other ancillary benefits, to which in my view Her Majesty’s Government must pay careful attention in the unravelling of the treaties. Today, the staff are worried. Some of them fear that HMG, who were so happy to have them in position when it was useful, are on the point of abandoning them.
I realise that the Minister is limited in what he can say in reply to this debate but I would like him to make two clear statements about the future. First, can he say a simple thank you to those who have dedicated their working lives to this project, which was until a few months ago a common endeavour? When I sat as a commercial mediator, I found that the first step on the road to a successful outcome in a case was often a simple acknowledgement that both sides owed something to the other. If the staff feel that they are abandoned and unwanted, this will trickle down through other agencies. Whether it be in the UN, NATO, the WTO or many others, the word will get round that the Government are not to be trusted and do not appreciate the work performed by their nationals. We will be poorer for it and be less well served. Secondly, can the Minister give an assurance that these financial worries and legitimate expectations will be at the forefront of Ministers’ minds when unravelling the complex interface between our obligation to present staff and pensioners and the need to complete the withdrawal negotiations expeditiously?
I am sure that the Minister will do his best. I am not here to cause him trouble but to raise some important points, which have been reflected to me by the staff associations of the European Union and by many of the people who have devoted their lives to working for what they regarded as a common endeavour. We owe them a responsibility of care and I look to the Government to deliver on that.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, this is a momentous debate, in which the House and Parliament as a whole are trying to turn our back on over 40 years of our history and strike out on our own in a highly dangerous and volatile world. This is the result of the referendum. Some people outside the House, and some of your Lordships as well, have tried to question the democratic legitimacy of the referendum on the grounds that only 39% of the people voted for it, and because all the lies told and falsehoods spread meant that the campaign was not as honest as it could have been. I am afraid that that is water under the bridge. It does not amount to any kind of electoral malpractice and can be ignored.
The referendum poses three extremely important questions. First, what is its constitutional status? Secondly, what does it commit us to? Thirdly, once we have achieved what it wants us to achieve, what next? In the five-odd minutes that I have, I will address those questions in that order.
The constitutional status of the referendum is that it is largely advisory. Although the Prime Minister and others have said differently, this is not part of the Bill—and only the Bill carries its own meaning. More importantly, to suggest that it is mandatory is to question the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, which is the constitutional linchpin of our political system. That means that, as an advisory proposal rather than a mandatory one, it requires every MP not simply to give in to what the referendum says but rather to give it serious thought and to give his best judgment to the question in hand. It is quite important that the MP is never entirely helpless. With an advisory referendum, the MP retains the freedom and responsibility to make sure that he exercises his mind as wisely as he can and delivers a judgment.
The same applies to your Lordships’ House. Although we are not elected, we are nevertheless representatives. As I teach my students in my political philosophy class, being elected and being representative are not necessarily the same thing. In certain contexts, the Queen represents us without having been elected. So the fact that we are sometimes threatened with extinction if we exercise our judgment need not worry us. During the 17 years that I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have seen those threats wielded again and again, and I am afraid that they do not really amount to very much—and if they do, we shall see.
I want to concentrate on the second question, which is: what does this referendum commit us to? Some people seem to think that it commits us conclusively and exclusively to getting out of the European Union. I am afraid that it does not. If 52% of the people want to get out and 48% of the people want to stay in, the message of the referendum, as I understand it, is to leave the European Union in such a way that we remain a member—to leave the European Union but not give up the best that it has given us and the gains we have made. That means that we should not do anything to, or settle on terms that, lower the standards that we have come to expect during the past 40-odd years that we have been a member of the European Union.
We should protect workers’ rights, we should not weaken the UK, we should respect human rights and we should respect the rights of EU nationals resident in the UK. This is what is being said when we are told that we are leaving the European Union but not Europe. What does that mean? What does Europe stand for as different from the European Union? Europe stands for certain social democratic values. So when we are told that we are not leaving Europe, we are saying that we are committed to those values and that they must at all costs remain our guiding star.
It is also quite important that we should not be too obsessed with the question of immigration, which was really the issue in the referendum. Immigration is bound to remain high, partly because of our labour market situation and partly because trade deals that we enter into with individual countries will involve clauses about the movement of people.
The third question is: once the terms of settlement have been reached, what do we do? Obviously they must be approved by the people. Ideally I would have liked this situation to be settled by Parliament on the principle that our system is based on parliamentary sovereignty. But, having conceded a referendum in the first instance, to go back on it or to suggest that there will be no referendum in the future would imply an act of political cowardice as well as being an act of inconsistency.
I will end by simply saying this. We are planning to go alone. We can go alone—no one in the world can stop us from doing that—but we should remember that, in wanting to do that, we run risks. We saw that, for example, when the Prime Minister had to meet the President of the United States. We need Uncle Sam to hold our hand and to make sure that we can get a better deal; we think that he will use his influence in such a way that other countries might give us one. On the one had we chafe against EU constraints; on the other hand we seem only to keen to embrace those offered by Uncle Sam. I do not think that is the way we should behave.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, cannot be here this evening, so it is my turn to speak—I think that I have moved up from 67 to 66 in the batting order. I have listened to some remarkable speeches and to views passionately held on both sides of the argument. I have reminded myself, having listened to seven and a half hours or thereabouts, that the issue raised here by the Bill is whether the Government may be given permission to take the first step to exiting Europe and to honouring the referendum vote. That is the issue. The House of Commons has said yes, and we should do the same. It is simply unacceptable for Parliament—for this House—not to honour its commitments. That is what happened when Parliament enacted the referendum Bill.
Of course the bedrock of our constitution is parliamentary sovereignty and of course the ultimate supremacy is in the House of Commons, which is our democracy in action. But because Parliament is sovereign, it may, if it wishes, curtail or restrict the operation of its sovereignty and, indeed, may delegate parts of its sovereignty. That is what happened when the European Communities Act 1972 was passed and that is what has happened, and will happen, whenever there is a referendum.
Because your Lordships have heard all the other arguments, I will give myself the chance to say something about referendums. I find them extremely worrying. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, reminded us of Lord Attlee’s concern about the dangers of a plebiscite. The real danger of a referendum is that the views of the minority get buried, which is one of the complaints that I have heard on this side of the House. Many people are also concerned about the divisions that the referendum has given rise to—but that is what referendums do. It is no longer those people there in Parliament listening to each other, disagreeing and voting; it is every single citizen disagreeing with every other citizen, by 52% to 48%. That is the cause of the divisions of which we have heard so much and which will continue if we have another referendum.
I simply cannot accept the constitutional validity of a referendum, which is offered to the public only because political parties of one side or another are not too happy about whether they will give a show of party unity in the House of Commons if the issue is debated. The truth is that major parties divide on serious and significant constitutional issues. Why should they not? Is that not the whole point? It is utterly politically naive of me, but why should there not be a free vote on these things? I realise that I am speaking as an out-of-touch lawyer who does not know the political realities, but if that is why we have a referendum—it is why we had a referendum about going into the EU and why we had a referendum about whether we should come out of it—that is an extraordinary abdication by Parliament and representatives of the country of their own responsibilities. I make it clear that I regard referendums as extremely alarming in our constitutional arrangements.
So what do we have here? Parliament, manifesting its sovereignty over these matters, gave the country a referendum. The country voted on a clear understanding that each individual vote, however many millions there were, would be counted and that the wish of the majority would prevail. If the vote was for Brexit, the Government would get on with the negotiations—in other words, the process should start. The referendum did not include any questions about the circumstances in which Article 50 should or should not be engaged, nor did it suggest that conditions might be attached to the operation of Article 50. It asked a simple question. It did not even ask the voters why they were voting the way they were. All of us have ideas why people voted in ways that some of us find surprising and remarkable. All of these were individual people and will have had their own reasons for voting, but, stripped to essentials, the question was, “In or out?”, and we know the result.
For the purposes of the Bill—the starting of the process under Article 50—surely Parliament must accept the result without equivocation or delay. Surely Parliament cannot now seek to attach conditions to the exercise of the Article 50 power. However, that is not what the referendum was about. It would be an astonishing coup for those negotiating with us on behalf of the EU if we in Parliament sought to set out conditions in advance of the negotiations that we would or would not find acceptable. Frankly, if I were on the other side, I would welcome such conditions being imposed; I would greet them with hilarity and think that the British had once again played into our hands.
With all that said, there is one further consideration. At the end of the negotiation, we are going to know what it provides. There is going to be an election the year after the end of the negotiation and the Government will have to answer to the electorate. The Government have suggested that Parliament would be allowed to have a say about the negotiations. I would be astonished if it did not, but surely Parliament has not become so pusillanimous that, if the Government did not give it a chance to discuss and debate the terms and conditions that had been arrived at by the end of the negotiation process, Parliament would not take its own course and take the matter into its own hands. We do not have to wait. For now, though, on the issue of whether the Government should be allowed to pursue Article 50, in reality there can be no argument.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my entries in the register of interests, in that I provide advice and consultancy services to a number of European companies and organisations. It is also worth recording that as a former Member of the European Parliament, I hope when I reach retirement age in due course to benefit from a pension from that institution. More than seven and a half hours into this debate, I am conscious of two things. The first is the incredible stamina of the two Front Benches, who are doing an excellent job of looking as though they are still paying attention to what everyone is saying. The second is that virtually everything has been said but of course not everyone has yet said it.
Before the referendum, after much careful thought and consideration, I supported Brexit, and of course I support the Bill today. I am fully aware that the negotiations over our departure from the EU and the follow-on trade arrangements will be difficult, complicated and drawn out, and there will be much drama, but that is not what the Bill is about. Put simply, the Bill is about giving notice under the only legal mechanism available, Article 50, of our intention to implement the result of the referendum.
Like others, I greatly enjoyed the contribution in another place from the Member for Rushcliffe, Kenneth Clarke. I did not agree with him, of course, but I greatly enjoyed his contribution. I think he benefited from the notion of consistency. He opposed the idea of a referendum and voted against holding one because he thought it was a bad idea, and therefore he did not feel bound by its result. I did not agree with him on any of those issues but at least he has the benefit of consistency in his views. What I find difficult is the inconsistency of many of the speakers in this debate, people who produced leaflets saying, “It’s time for a real referendum on Europe”, and who enthusiastically supported the referendum Bill when it came to this House but now tell us that they somehow do not wish to accept the result of that referendum.
When they voted on the referendum Bill, what did they think they were voting for? Did any of them say in debate at the time that the referendum was only advisory and a glorified opinion poll, as someone has said? Indeed, did they make that point during the referendum campaign itself? Of course, the answer is no, they did not. In fact, the opposite is the case. The Liberal Democrats in particular went out of their way to tell us all how important it was, how it was vital for the future of the country: this was an opportunity finally to put this issue to bed and not have to talk about it ever again. That was why it was important for us all to go out to vote remain. Now that they have a result they did not want, they are all telling us that actually, it is time to think again and we should have another referendum in case we want to change our minds.
I fear that that is how I view many of the amendments spoken to tonight to either delay the result and notification of Article 50 or to bind the hands of our negotiators. Therefore, all the amendments are unwelcome. I want to see us become a good neighbour and friend to the European Union rather than what we have become, which is a reluctant tenant. The country has voted to leave. We should get on with it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I rise with great sadness to speak in this debate on a Bill which will trigger the implementation of the biggest political decision taken in the past 40 years. The European Union has been a large part of my professional, political and family life. I have never wavered in my view of the crucial role that the EU plays and has played in safeguarding peace and stability among its members. It is certainly not perfect, but it has been extraordinarily successful in bringing people and nations together, in stabilising democracies, as a catalyst for change in countries aspiring to be our partners, and in creating the biggest trading block in the world which respects the rights of workers, consumers and the environment. Since we joined, both Conservative and Labour Governments have been crucial in the development of the EU, and our proud place in the world owes a great deal to our membership.
Notwithstanding this brilliant beacon of hope for the world in these increasingly difficult and dangerous times, when our closest ally is abandoning values that we used to share, we are going to cut ourselves adrift, thanks to Mr Cameron’s political expediency, which backfired and could have potentially catastrophic consequences for our country. I will not rehearse the debate about the toxic rhetoric and intolerance of the deeply flawed referendum campaign, of which I am still ashamed. Of course, alienation towards the EU did not begin last year, and many of us bear a terrible responsibility for not being more robust in its defence over the past 20 years, countering the myths espoused by the press and its owners.
The people have indeed voted, and I would certainly not say that they did not know what they were voting for. They took the decision seriously. However, they were sold a pig in a poke and, rather than taking back control of their lives, they may well now be faced by job insecurity, rising prices, fewer rights as workers and consumers and fewer opportunities. As has been said, leaving the EU will not mend all that is wrong with our society.
While I understand the anger about elitism and inequality that I believe was expressed in the vote, I do not think that people voted to leave the single market or the customs union, so I have to ask why the Prime Minister did not even try to negotiate future membership of the single market with some restriction on freedom of movement. Why does she continue the appalling policy of Mr Cameron of putting politics before the economy?
The Minister in the Commons said that the vote at the end of the negotiations will be either to accept the deal that the Government will have achieved or for there to be no deal. That, for me, is simply not good enough. Parliament should have the opportunity to send the Government back to negotiate further with our European partners if the choice is between a hard Brexit that is not in the national interest and no deal. A recent ICM poll, carried out for Avaaz, showed that only 35% of the public would support crashing out on WTO terms and no deal, while 54% would want either the Prime Minister to continue negotiation or to suspend Brexit pending a second referendum. The EU and the wider world are rapidly changing politically, socially, economically, technologically and environmentally, and I believe it is therefore imperative for us to keep the door open to all options at the end of the process.
With the Bill, the country is embarking on a perilous journey towards an unknown future which, rather than being driven by economic well-being, is being driven by immigration control. Before setting off on the journey, I should like, for example, more information about the implications for our economy. Where is the economic analysis? I should like to know the Government’s views on the important legal issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Will there be a further Bill at the end of the process? I would also be grateful for clarity about transitional arrangements that the Government will be seeking. The Government appear deluded about the time that negotiations will take on the difficulties ahead, and do not seem to understand that the overriding priority of our 27 partners who will have to ratify the final agreement is to maintain the integrity of the European Union.
How are the Government going to ensure that while reducing immigration they can continue to meet the needs of our farmers, our businesses, our construction and engineering industries, our health and social care sector and our universities? It is not just the hugely important question of EU nationals currently living in the UK; it is our ability to attract skills and talent in the future. Will EU nationals wish to come and work here if they have to pay for health insurance or if their children have to pay fees as foreign students at our universities? There has already been a reduction of more than 90% in the number of nurses from the EU registering with the Nursing & Midwifery Council since the referendum vote.
The referendum result was devastating for the 3 million EU nationals who live in this country but also for the Brits with whom many have relationships. People who contribute to our economy at all levels are already leaving this country because of the uncertainty for them and their families. The Prime Minister says she values the contribution of EU nationals, so now it is time to act. We are talking about human beings, not numbers on a spreadsheet. They need and deserve a guarantee that they can stay and that their rights will be grandfathered. I do not underestimate the complexities but this is a problem of the Government’s own making and they have a huge responsibility to deliver. The situation of our own nationals in other parts of the EU is equally important, but they are in favour of this unilateral action.
While I am passionate about this issue, more importantly, so are all the young people I know. I have spoken to literally hundreds of young people since the referendum, in academies, grammar schools, FE colleges and universities, and all but a handful are despairing of the result of the referendum. They feel that their opportunities have been stunted and that we, the generation who had it all, have sold their future down the river. Those youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18 feel particularly angry that they were not even allowed to vote about their future. Many young people who feel European are looking for jobs elsewhere in the world, my own children included. They are dismayed about the prospect of a future in an inward-looking, insular country, as well as about the deep divisions in our society.
I accept that there is no turning back, so it is our absolute duty to challenge the Government, to scrutinise and amend this Bill. But in doing so, my principles will not change. This is a great and diverse country but it is now fractured. I want my country to prosper, to be stronger, to be tolerant, and I will do everything I can to help it to succeed. However, I firmly believe that this will be much more difficult outside the European Union when our economic power and our voice in the world will be diminished. To mix my metaphors, alone we are merely a player on the global stage whereas the EU is greater than the sum of its parts and enables us to have an enhanced role on that stage.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the Prime Minister, and the government White Paper, state that there is to be no “partial membership” of the European Union. The UK is to leave and will be out. The Prime Minister has further made it clear that she hopes for a good deal, one that is mutually of benefit to both sides and the most satisfactory to aim for and to achieve—a win-win solution. She has also made it clear that in the absence of any acceptable future arrangement the UK will up sticks and leave. It is to be assumed that this would be at the end of the two-year period set aside in Article 50, or possibly by mutual consent, somewhat delayed by the pace of negotiation, to more than two years, but certainly not indefinitely.
If the first of these is plan A and the second is plan B, is there not also a real plan C that must be borne in mind? I have referred in previous debates to my concerns about the all-too-prevalent presumption that the European Union, not least during the period of Article 50 work, is going to be and will remain a stable and unified entity. I do not believe that to be more than an optimal assumption about the state and configuration of the EU in two or three years’ time.
The euro problems are not resolved, migration flows may further stress relationships throughout continental Europe, and the prospect that several parliamentary and leadership elections are imminent this year may also presage a potentially very different negotiating climate, and replacement interlocutors for Article 50. That may lead to some delay, but I think that the ultimate and critical hurdle has to be political in the sense that the EU has to engender European parliamentary approval and a qualified majority of nation member Governments, to a final Brexit deal. However, on such an issue the Council would surely, as is already normal, seek unanimity. As Sir Ivan Rogers prophesied, a period of years, or even decades, of negotiation and stalemate could be the prospect.
I believe, therefore, that there must be a plan C that addresses the political difficulties I have outlined, and not just those concerning the trade and many other international relationships that have grown up for the UK and the EU in the past 40 years, and been much debated today. The reality hurdle, or stumbling block, has to be: will the EU nations agree and maintain a common political approach over the coming two years, maybe a bit longer?
I, for one, will not wager any bet, large or small, on that being the case. A plan C, which may presumably be a variant of “We’re off plan B” must be considered. How do we respond if faced by a protracted lack of political unanimity in the EU nations, even though many trade, research, residency and other aspects have been favourably negotiated and backed by some, but not all, of the EU nations? On residency that must surely be a first priority issue for the Government. A plan C must be prepared to consider the range of such possibilities where neither a plan A nor a plan B will be achievable and satisfactory, or likely to gain parliamentary approval. Meanwhile, I support this short enabling Bill to invoke Article 50 without amendment. The time to consider future-related legislation and challenges is not for this short Bill.
The opportunities to debate, and if necessary challenge the Government, will arise during the next couple of years, when issues become clear and are not merely supposition. As a short postscript, I suppose for some there is also a plan D—for the UK to remain, as now, in the EU—but I have no time to take this type of plan seriously.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I remember vividly when we joined the EEC in 1973. That is partly because I went to work in Paris at the beginning of that year and I no longer needed a carte de travail—a work permit. As an internationally minded person I felt this was progress in the right direction. As a lawyer who had worked in various European countries, the idea of harmonisation and a more efficient and effective business Europe had considerable appeal. Therefore, the decision of the 1975 referendum to stay in the EEC, with a substantial majority in that case, was welcome. Then came the 1979 direct elections and I was fortunate to be elected to represent Liverpool in the European Parliament. As an aside, Liverpool was the only major post-industrial city to vote to remain in last year’s referendum. Subsequently, as a Minister in your Lordships’ House, I played an active part in Council of Ministers meetings.
This brief background sketch is intended to show that my political career has been all about building a stronger, more united Europe as a force in the world to balance the dominance of the United States of America and the rising powers in the East. That is why I voted to remain in the European Union and was shocked and disappointed at the result. In saying this, I recognise, as has been said, that the European Union is not perfect. Any institution needs to be reformed and revitalised from time to time, even our own. It also explains, I hope, my dilemma now about what to do about the simple, little Bill before us, which is set to trigger Article 50 and the process of our exit.
Given my natural inclination to do everything possible to delay the evil moment, the closeness of the referendum result, with almost half the voting population choosing to remain, after a misleading campaign, the number of people who have written and made representations asking the House of Lords to reverse the vote of the House of Commons and some of the arguments raised in the course of this debate, I have nevertheless come to the conclusion that we cannot and should not attempt to reverse the result. I do not like referendums and I certainly do not want another one, but our Parliament’s sovereignty—which was, after all, a big issue during the campaign—deserves no less than a final say on the outcome of the negotiations. This would be in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling and in this respect I agree with the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Faulks and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
Your Lordships’ House will also have a major role in the great repeal Bill which is ahead of us. I say this based on the input of the European Union Scrutiny Committee, of which I have been a member, as well as on the series of excellent debates held since last year on the specific consequences of Brexit for research and development, higher education, the creative industries et cetera. I hope that the conclusions and focus of these debates will not be lost. However, other matters require more detailed consideration. As well as the need to safeguard Northern Ireland’s position, which has already been pointed out, the future of Gibraltar and the other overseas territories must be worked out, as must the bilateral trade deals and many other consequences of the vote. I confidently expect that these issues can be fully tackled during the passage of the great repeal Bill and I pin my hopes on that.
Last week, I was in Berlin on an IPU delegation. My German friends could not comprehend how we had arrived at this point. As has been pointed out, their constitution does not allow them to hold referendums. Perhaps we should do the same when we get a written constitution. As my noble friend Lord Hill said, what seems like a very long time ago, we have to take account of our European neighbours. They need us to be “clear and consistent”: I would add, “polite”. I hope that we approach these negotiations talking not just about our own self-interest all the time but about what is in the best interests of Europe as a whole. In my book, that includes us whether we are in or out of the European Union. We all need certainty and the only way to achieve this is to proceed with triggering Article 50 and seeing the speedy passage of the Bill through the House
I will make one final observation. Brexit has been compared to a divorce. As it happens, I have three sets of friends who have been divorced but who, after a space, reconsidered and remarried. I hope that there will be good will and understanding on both sides in our negotiations with the European Union. A clean break will enable us to take a breath and take a view on the future in a positive and constructive way. We may even see a re-entry. Who knows what the future may hold?
Baroness Henig (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. We are all aware of the importance of this debate. In 30 or 50 years from now, academics, PhD students and programme makers will be poring over our speeches to understand why this country took the decisions it did in 2016-17 and how we parliamentarians explained and analysed the choices facing us. That is my defence for being the 73rd of 190 speakers in this debate.
Whatever our feelings about Brexit, we in your Lordships’ House have a very limited choice in relation to this Bill. We can support it, given its large majority in the other place, or we can try to find improvements in the form of meaningful amendments to send back to the Commons. We are in a very unenviable position because in their election manifesto the Government took the decision to superimpose direct democracy on our parliamentary system of government in respect of membership of the EU. We tried to modify this measure, but the Government were unyielding in their insistence on a winner-takes-all referendum—a simple yes/no proposition—and that is why we ended up in our present situation, with a bitterly divided nation and a Government pursuing a harder and harder Brexit, which I actually believe a majority of parliamentarians do not support.
It is worth considering what might have happened differently in the past few decades had the public, rather than MPs, been the decision-makers. In the mid-1960s, MPs voted to abolish capital punishment, despite vociferous public opposition. We can be absolutely certain that a referendum at that time would have endorsed capital punishment, as it was not until the 1990s at the earliest that majority public opinion shifted towards abolition, 30 years after MPs had taken their vote. Would the public have been right and MPs wrong? Surely a majority in favour of a measure does not automatically mean that it the best action to take.
If we go further back to October 1938, had there been a referendum on whether this country should become involved in a war to stop Hitler from overturning frontiers in eastern Europe, I have no doubt whatsoever that a considerable majority would have been opposed to involvement in war. Churchill would have been tearing his hair out in frustration, but he knew the strength of the appeasement lobby and, let us not forget, of the popular press which was leading it. For how long would that decision have held? As Hitler extended his grip over eastern Europe and it became increasingly clear that Britain faced great peril, would another referendum have been held, or would Parliament or the Government have taken action to override the decision?
This is surely the second big problem with direct democracy: just as the public do not necessarily come up with the optimum answer, so also the system cannot respond to changes in circumstance. Some are now arguing that Brexit is irreversible—200 years at least, suggested the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, not very long ago—but why should that be so? Others in this debate have exhorted us to accept the verdict and get on with implementing it, but if international circumstances or economic trends change significantly and adversely, if in 18 months’ time the only deal in sight is a really bad deal, should we just accept it? Why should there not be a parliamentary vote or even another referendum? This is certainly something that we must debate further in Committee.
The examples of capital punishment and of public opinion in 1938 show us that majority opinion has on many past occasions been at odds with parliamentary opinion, but never before have we had to manage a situation in which that majority have voted to lead us in a direction which large numbers of parliamentarians consider to be disastrous, or at the very least, ill-advised. I understand why so many people voted as they did to leave the EU, but I cannot agree that this was a good outcome.
I will give just two reasons why passing this Bill will make the country weaker, and not stronger. The first is the overwhelming evidence that leaving the EU will undermine our security. That was revealed in the debate in your Lordships’ House two weeks ago on the excellent report, Brexit: Future UK-EU Security and Police Cooperation. Far from taking back control, we will be losing it in a serious way if we are no longer members of Europol, participants in the European arrest warrant scheme, or able to access the European Criminal Records Information System. We will not be able to track travelling criminals so easily, pursue speedy extraditions, or exchange information with our European neighbours so quickly about the movements of potential terrorists. Brexiteers will say we can make special deals to cover these things, but that will hardly be possible because we are severing our links with the European Court of Justice.
The second big negative for me is the proposed departure from the single market. The Conservative election manifesto of 2015 promised that Britain would stay in the single market, and one can certainly ask what percentage of the 52% who wanted to get out of the EU also wanted to get out of the single market and customs union. Here we have the world’s largest tariff-free area—half a billion people—right on our doorstep, and we are turning our back on it. How can that make economic sense? How does that help our small and medium-sized businesses?
The Government talk of the virtues of a clean break, but what of all the issues that have to be resolved before separation? The chair of one of the big banks said that his team have identified 650 crucial issues. The next few years are going to be an absolute nightmare in terms of detailed policy-making to take us out of the EU and the single market. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that people did not vote to become poorer or less safe; I am sorry, but that is exactly what they did. The only clear outcome of leaving the single market that I can see is steady economic decline, which accession to the EU enabled us to escape for a few decades.
I conclude with a very likely unintended consequence of a hard Brexit, which will be richly ironic. The Scottish Government, unsurprisingly in view of the strong pro-EU sentiments north of the border, want to remain in the single market. If this proves not to be possible, we can be assured that pressure will build irresistibly for a second independence referendum, which may very well be won. So future historians will write with great interest about how an avowedly unionist party, in a bid to resolve internal political differences, instead managed to bring about the break-up of the United Kingdom.
That is why I cannot support Article 50 as it stands. I respect the fact that others will have different views to mine, and they may very well be in a majority. But it is my strong belief that it is not in the national interest for the UK to leave the EU, and certainly not to leave the single market and customs union.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, increasing anti-European sentiment was a prime reason for me to bid farewell to the Conservative Party in 1997, 20 years ago, after 13 years as a Member of Parliament, from 1979 to 1992. That sentiment continued unabated, and finally resulted in the 2015 Conservative manifesto commitment, and of course the 23 June referendum. At the referendum, a simple question was put: in or out? There were no sub-questions on hard or soft Brexit, the single market or the customs union. Of course, there were exaggerations and untruths, many voted for all sorts of reasons, and many did not realise all the implications. But all that, I am afraid, is true of all elections and referendums. As we now know, there was a clear, albeit small, majority to leave—a decision I bitterly regret in so many ways, and a tragedy both for our country and for Europe. Looking back, the referendum was fundamentally flawed. Clearly, we should have given young people a vote—after all, it is their future—and I suggest that a higher barrier to leave than just a simple majority would have made sense. However, all that is hindsight; we are where we are.
It is fair to say, as a remainer, that our economy and financial markets have held up rather better than expected in the short term, but we are just in the foothills of negotiations. Tortuous paths lie ahead. I fear that Europe will ensure that we pay a heavy price for leaving, not least to discourage other countries from following us. However, we are already experiencing some of the negatives: a fall in sterling, resulting in rising inflation, which increasingly pressurises family budgets; a vile rise in hate crimes; uncertainties over future investment plans of major international companies; and a question mark over London as the dominant financial centre. However, one plus is that cosmetic surgery, apparently, has fallen 40% since Brexit, although I know of no reason for that and will not go down the route of speculation.
So far, the Government have hardly covered themselves in glory. Parliamentary scrutiny had to be forced on them by the courts, and they would have gained considerable respect by coming out early to guarantee that EU nationals living and working here would have a permanent right of abode. To treat them like pawns in a negotiation is immoral and demeaning. In practice, many of our key sectors, such as hospitality, caring, food processing and agriculture, are dependent on them remaining here.
There are those—a majority on these Benches—who argue for a further popular vote at the end of negotiations: a destination vote, or similar. But however it is dressed up, it will be seen as a second referendum. I cannot support that. Our people have already spoken. A further vote will prolong the uncertainty and cause uproar in the country, or worse. Fanned by a hostile popular press, it would only widen the gulf between the establishment and the population—the very gap that many on these Benches have been striving so hard to bridge. Noble Lords will be able to see why I am sitting so far away from our Chief Whip.
We are a revising Chamber, acknowledging the primacy of the Commons. It voted overwhelmingly—that is, by 494 votes to 122—to trigger Article 50. I submit that calling for those already here to be allowed to stay falls within our scrutinising and revising jurisdiction; but a call for a further popular vote goes way beyond it.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I would like to follow the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I support this Bill very reluctantly, but think it would cause greater harm to the nation to disregard the result of last year’s referendum than to proceed on a course to separate ourselves from Europe—though I fear that that will, in the longer term, cause us great harm, and harm our neighbours. If one wants evidence for that one can turn to the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, who focused on two areas: the economy and security. She made a persuasive case that we will be worse off out of Europe than we are in it.
I thank the Leader of the House for introducing the Bill in such a helpful way. I will certainly seek to be constructive. Along with many noble Lords, I feel that at the end of the negotiations, when the deal is clear in the mind of the Government, Parliament needs a proper occasion to debate that. I hope the Minister is prepared to give an undertaking, either today or in Committee, that the Government will extend the offer they made in the Commons and allow Parliament to make a proper contribution to the final deal. If not, I hope the House will move amendments to make that possible.
I am grateful to the Government and, indeed, for certain aspects of last year’s referendum result. It has brought home to all of us that a large part of the nation feels left behind, ignored and that it has not benefited from the economic success many of us have experienced in recent years, or from globalisation. If we look across to the United States, we see a similar experience: many people feel that, despite its great economic success, they have been overlooked. Those in the rust belt feel that they have been left behind. They look at Silicon Valley and feel envious, resentful and neglected. Therefore, I welcome that aspect of the result—it has brought home to us that we need to do more to reach out to the regions of this nation and its poorer groups, and recognise the difficulties they face, say we recognise them and take action to address them. The Prime Minister talks about those forgotten people; we need to see real action being taken to soften austerity. I sense that the Government have begun to talk more about homelessness issues and the many families in this country living in accommodation for the homeless. A Private Member’s Bill—the Homelessness Reduction Bill—is coming very shortly, supported by the Government.
The Government may be in power for many years to come. I enjoin them to be a one-nation Conservative Party, because the referendum last year brought home to all of us that if we are not a one-nation nation, if we allow certain regions and groups of people to be neglected, there is a risk that populist politicians with a narrow understanding of the national interest will take advantage of that. That may be a heavy responsibility on the Government, given that they may in office for several years to come and they have the challenges not only of Brexit but of an uncertain economic future. They have done a good job of recognising the concern of many people across the nation that they have been disregarded. I hope they will persevere with that even in the current difficult circumstances.
Since taking my seat in this House 18 years ago, I have always been worried about the risk of our pivoting towards the United States. On matters of child welfare, one sees that despite many other great things about the country, the United States is a nation of great inequality where the poorest children do very badly. It has a high rate of teenage pregnancy—even higher than here, and we have the worst in the European Union—and high levels of criminalisation. The OECD found in its 2012 report on family functioning that in the United States, about 25% of children were growing up without a father in the home. In this country the figure was about 21%; in Germany I think it was about 18%—Germany and France were lower.
The UNICEF four-yearly tables on child welfare show that of the developed countries, the United States is normally at the bottom. Eight years ago we found ourselves second from the bottom, with the United States following, and the other European nations doing better. From a child and family welfare point of view we should keep looking to the continent rather than the United States, because that is generally the better direction to go in. I am concerned that as a result of the referendum, we may turn even more towards the United States and I hope that the Government—to give them another responsibility—will make every effort to stop that happening.
My time is up. With the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, I visited the German Parliament in Berlin last week. One of the members of the economics and energy committee there asked me what modelling had we done of the economic consequences of Brexit—a question also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, today. Can the Minister provide us with information on what modelling has been done of our future prospects, particularly in the worst-case WTO scenario? I expect the European Select Committee of this House will play an important role in getting the information we as parliamentarians need on this matter. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords,
“We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome”.
Those less than a dozen words with an unambiguous meaning were clearly written on the Government’s leaflet and delivered to all homes prior to the referendum last year. The Conservative Party at the last election was clear in its commitment that a Conservative Government would hold a referendum on our membership of the European Union. As David Cameron said, this was to settle the issue of one of the most vexing political debates of the past 40 years. It was the largest democratic exercise in British history. More people voted to leave the European Union than have voted for any Government, party or anything else before. With this in mind, I am struck by the challenges presented to our constitution by some Members sitting in this Chamber—many purporting to be democrats—who are willing to vote to deny or frustrate the democratically expressed will of the British people.
This issue transcends party politics. I have for the past 30 years, through involvement in voluntary politics, knocked on countless doors. One thing has been clear, expressed in different ways, through so many of those thousands of conversations—people are fed up and want their politicians to listen. It would be seen as an act of considerable arrogance if we were to act against the largest ever popular vote in a ballot in our history by attempting to frustrate the Government and the clear will of the other place.
Trust in British politics and politicians is at a terrible low. What will the message be to the people if we frustrate or ignore their direction? Over the weeks and months following the referendum, much was written about those who felt left behind in this country and felt they did not matter. Many people feel looked down upon by distant elites, sitting in high, lofty chambers and deaf to their concerns. What message do we send from this place if we frustrate Brexit now? They will feel more and more alienated from politics and the politicians who vote on the laws that govern their lives. That is dangerous to our democracy. It is not for us in this place, or indeed in this Palace, to use parliamentary gymnastics to frustrate or delay the will of the British people.
It would be a fool’s folly and a dangerous undertaking to ignore the instruction given on 23 June last year. What precedent does it set if we simply ignore the results of referendums that we do not like? We must vote for this Bill.
On the subject of the Bill itself, this is a straightforward piece of legislation that simply gives the Prime Minister the authority to execute an instruction already given by the British people last summer. With that in mind, and given the fact that this Bill was given to us without amendment, the Prime Minister must have the flexibility to undertake these difficult negotiations. For this reason, I do not believe that we in this House should amend the Bill.
I am mindful of the fact that 48% of the country voted to remain, and the referendum exposed a country divided. But I believe we can begin to mend the wounds only by moving forward. Now that the decision has been made by the British people, we need to make Brexit work, and work for everyone. We should all now focus on getting the best possible deal from the EU, one which will allow Britain to fulfil its ambition and play its full part on the global stage—an open Britain which is international and outward-looking, engaged with Europe and the world, and which offers opportunities to all.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I must admit, the sense of bereavement that I felt on 24 June was not to do with any question mark over our future in the single market or customs union, vital as that future is to the economic well-being and security of our fellow citizens, particularly those who will be increasingly left behind. Rather, the blow was to my identity. While I shall always feel like a European, I shall no longer be able to claim to be a European citizen. Many of the flood of emails I have received asking me to oppose or, at least, help amend the Bill—against just three in support—have expressed similar dismay at the loss of European citizenship. This is felt most acutely by those who have exercised their right to live and work or study in an EU country not of their birth. I believe the voices of the 48% need to be heard as well.
The unilateral provision of permanent residence and indivisible associated rights to EU nationals who are legally resident in the UK has been called for in the alternative White Papers prepared by groups of UK citizens in continental Europe and continental EU citizens in the UK, as well as in virtually every email I have received. To quote Heidi Allen MP, such provision is,
“the moral and right thing to do”.
This is argued also by the European Union Committee, which suggests that the uncertainty around the rights of EU nationals may be fuelling xenophobic sentiment as well as causing untold anxiety.
According to a European Parliament document leaked to the Guardian, permanent residency rights would make it more likely, rather than less, that the same rights would be accorded to UK nationals living elsewhere in the EU. Writing this into the Bill must surely be one of our bottom lines. But Brexit also raises wider important questions about human rights which, according to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government are unable to answer, causing the committee to regret the lack of any clear vision as to how they expect Brexit will impact on the UK’s human rights framework. Of course, assurances that workers’ rights will be protected and even enhanced are welcome, but the EU has been the driver of many other rights, including some social and economic rights in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights not covered by the separate European Court of Human Rights, which I believe it is essential we remain signed up to.
While no one is suggesting that the so-called great repeal Bill will repeal all those rights, what guarantee is there they will all survive without the underpinning of EU law, especially if we end up with the worst-case scenario of a no deal, deregulated economy? We will no longer benefit from the impetus of advances made at the EU level, such as the current consultation on strengthening parental leave. That point has been made by many, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which calls on the Government to commit to taking on board future rights-enhancing laws emanating from the EU where appropriate. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position on these matters when he winds up?
It is not just a question of laws but, for instance, the emergent European pillar of social rights, designed to strengthen social Europe. It was suggested in a recent meeting in Parliament by a member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that Brexit strengthens the case for ratification of the UN Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in order to protect social rights—especially important for marginalised groups. Refugees constitute a particularly marginalised and vulnerable group. Will the Minister give a commitment that, post Brexit, the UK will continue to respect and enable the family reunion provisions under the Dublin III regulations?
Talk of human rights may sound rather abstract, but we are talking about, for instance, women’s rights, disabled people’s rights—debated recently in this House—and environmental rights. Serious concerns have been raised by expert bodies about the future protection and enhancement of all these, yet, other than workers’ rights, they are virtually ignored in the White Paper.
The JCHR also raised the question of human rights standards in future trade deals, as has Amnesty, which argues that it is essential that any future trade agreements strictly embed the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. I cannot help but fear that, for all the warm words in the White Paper about protecting respect for human rights and dignity internationally, under a hard Brexit human rights would take low priority in the unseemly haste to strike new trade deals, including with countries with poor human rights records and with a US whose President has legitimised misogyny, racism and xenophobia, is happy to trample on the rights of refugees and immigrants, and condones torture. He has, in any case, made it clear that he will put America first in any trade negotiations, as noted earlier. To avoid such a scenario, it is all the more important that Parliament has a meaningful and effective vote and scrutiny over the Article 50 deal.
I have been struck by the number of those who have written to me expressing shame at what has happened to our country since the referendum. This strengthens my belief, for the reasons I have given and many others—including the three knights’ opinion on the constitutional implications of Article 50—that, to turn around the words of the Brexit Secretary, it is our patriotic duty to return the Bill to the Commons with key democratic and rights safeguards added.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, why speak in this debate at this hour? A decision has been taken and the other place has voted. As a revising Chamber, we are increasingly respected in the country as people become aware of the scrutiny of issues that occurs in this Chamber. Many of the complex issues that need to be focused on in negotiations must not be forgotten in a rush to sign us out of the European Union. Raising issues and tabling amendments to be debated is now probably the best way to lay the foundations to ensure that the deep concerns of many are addressed. It is the only way to bring together several of the different camps that exist in our country at present. Those writing to us have laid out the issues clearly, with detailed arguments.
Many noble Lords have spoken about economic issues, but a healthy, active nation is essential for a productive future. Health security requires ever closer, not more distant, collaboration with all those European agencies working in areas such as infection monitoring and control, antibiotic resistance, mapping environmental chemical toxins, hazardous waste, control of air pollution, climate change and food quality, all of which are underpinned by EU frameworks. Of course, there is also collaboration over terrorism and crime prevention. Safeguarding our health means working with the main relevant European agencies and with Europol.
I want to focus on the health and social care workforce, of whom 11%—around 160,000—are currently from the European Union. With many posts unfilled, we will not become self-sufficient, with suitably trained staff, for many years. Around 7% of doctors across the UK are European medical graduates. We are heavily reliant on them. At consultant level, our dependence is even greater. Overall, 14.6% of fully trained specialists, including a fifth of surgeons and almost a quarter of ophthalmologists, are European medical graduates. These are people with unique, highly specialised skills. If they are not there, people cannot be treated.
In general practice, the Government have promised 5,000 more GPs by 2021, but currently one in five GP trainee posts in England—that is 611—are currently unfilled. In the north-east, almost half of such posts are vacant. Recruiting GPs and introducing seven-day practice opening will not be possible without medical recruitment from overseas. The Secretary of State himself confirmed this in evidence to the Health Select Committee in January. This may seem a short-term problem, but it will take decades even for this workforce to be brought up to speed, if we try to be self-sufficient. We are dependent on our European colleagues. EU nationals working in health and social care must have residency rights in a way that continues to attract talent to the UK; we should not just say, “Well, if you are here, you now can stay”.
How can we turn these apparent difficulties into an arrangement of mutual benefit between ourselves and our EU partners? British doctors, scientists and other healthcare workers must be able to continue to go to the EU to train and to teach others. The benefits are two-way. For example, my own team helped set up palliative care training and advice services in many European countries. Advances in disease prevention and treatments need networks to facilitate high-quality research, clinical trials and patient access to innovative new technologies. Over the years we have been major beneficiaries of European research funding, particularly through framework funding grants. This is funding that we shall now have to find from elsewhere, while preserving the research collaborations, if we are not to fall behind. Such collaborations benefit both parties.
Our research strategy for the life sciences is part of our industrial strategy. Access to the world’s best talent must be centre stage. While we look to attract from across the globe, we must not lose those already living here. The question of reciprocity of residence is more than leave to remain; it should specify rights of domicile.
I recognise that the clock cannot be put back and that the Prime Minister has a very difficult job. There are no magic wands. I hope the Minister can reassure the country that the Government recognise the importance of ensuring our long-term health and personal security and that vibrant research is good for all. Those working in these core areas need to know that they are welcome to live here in the long term.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, there’s a Jewish story of a man who goes over a precipice and as he tumbles into the ravine he grabs hold of one solitary branch. As he swings there, his fingers slowly losing their grip, he shouts, “Is there anyone up there? Lord, is there anyone up there? Lord, what shall I do?” And a voice comes out of the heavens. “Son, let go of the branch. Let go of the branch”. The man swings a moment more, staring into the unknown as he ponders the advice. Then he shouts, “Is there anyone else up there?”.
We have asked the question. We have had the answer. There isn’t anyone else up there. We will have to let go of the branch. Brexit means Brexit. Let us make sure we share an understanding of how we got there. It is a common complaint of the Liberal Democrats that David Cameron’s Conservative Party implemented Liberal Democrat ideas and appropriated the credit. I think we can all agree that it would be tragic were such a fate to befall them yet again and on such an important issue. In 2008, there was one isolated pioneer calling for an in/out referendum on membership of the EU. It was not Nigel Farage; it was years before UKIP started advocating a national vote. No, it was lonely but determined Nick Clegg.
The Liberal Democrat leader bravely launched a petition. “We, the undersigned, believe the Government should give the British people a real choice on Europe by holding a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union”. The party distributed leaflets with Mr Clegg’s picture on them. “It’s time for a real referendum on Europe,” it declared. “It is vital that you and the British people have a say in a real EU referendum.” The campaigning Lib Dems had had enough of the temporising of their rivals. “The Conservatives,” the party said dismissively, “only support a limited referendum on the Lisbon treaty. Why won’t they give the people a say in a real referendum?” In fact, the Liberal Democrats like in/out referendums so much they now want another one. So I can imagine how frustrating it must be for them that, after Mr Cameron finally buckled to Lib Dem pressure and held Mr Clegg’s referendum, all the credit for this democratic gesture has been taken by Mr Cameron. I am glad to be able in Parliament to right that injustice—one other injustice, too.
It is astonishingly modest of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party to insist with great diffidence that noble Lords overlook the fact that they voted in Parliament to hold this referendum and they united to do so. It is immensely good of them to insist that this be regarded as a Tory referendum, but really, we will not hear of it—they deserve their day in the sun, too. The whole of Parliament offered the British people a referendum and it was profoundly right that we did. I voted to remain in the European Union but the constitutional implications of remaining in the European Union are and were very serious and people deserved a choice. Nick Clegg offered a referendum because he knew people wanted one. Tony Blair offered a constitutional referendum because he knew people wanted one. When offered the chance, people voted to leave. I think this is a pretty strong answer to the idea that people did not really want a referendum at all. People knew what they were being asked, they knew what they thought and they understood what they were doing. Now it is our job to pass the Bill.
The counterpart to the false idea that this was just a Tory referendum is that what is being proposed now is just Tory Brexit: a harder, more chaotic, less caring Brexit than strictly necessary—we need a soft Brexit. Do even those who make this point really believe it? First, does anyone seriously suggest that we can allow our domestic regulations to be created by a body to which we do not belong? That is what being in the single market while leaving the EU means. During the referendum Nick Clegg called this “fax democracy” and it was correctly described as the worst of both worlds. Now he and others appear to be proposing that we opt for the worst of both worlds.
Secondly, does anyone seriously expect that the EU is going to allow us to remain in the single market if we leave the EU? It could not have been clearer that it will not. Thirdly, is anyone seriously suggesting that we can determine the outcome of Brexit ourselves and decide for ourselves if it is hard or chaotic? You cannot decide the outcome of multilateral negotiations unilaterally. So-called soft Brexit is not tenable—and, even if it were, it is not on offer. If we could really determine the shape of Brexit ourselves, and could be members of the single market without the other stuff, I do not know whether I would still have voted to remain. However, that was not on the table in June and it is not now.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, the advantage of following the noble Lord is that he has woken you all up and I can now get on with what I want to do. I have spoken about five times on this issue in your Lordships’ House. Your Lordships may not remember, but I have. My line has been very consistent. Whatever we may think of the referendum as a process, we cannot judge its quality by the result. If you do not like the result, it does not mean that the process was bad.
The result was quite remarkable—52% to 48%. In England it was 53.3% to 46.7%. Few people remember that out of 34 million votes, 28 million were cast in England. In England the difference was between 15 million and 13 million. The difference of 2 million was exactly the difference at a national level—18 million to 16 million—so the 3 million votes on either side were cast in the three devolved regions. So the majority for Brexit comes from England. This was an English nationalist vote—make no mistake about it—and we have to take it seriously because this is the largest part of the United Kingdom.
There is a double process. First there is the divorce and then there are negotiations on cohabitation. A lot of people in the debate today, with a lot of good will, have mixed up the two processes. They want to have a good cohabitation. More or less, they are saying, “Yes, I want a divorce”, but then, “Let’s forget it. I want the same life as we had before”—in other words, we want the single market, we want the customs union, et cetera. As the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, said, this option may not be available.
First, we have to do not a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit but a quick Brexit. The precise breaking up of the legal membership has to be done as quickly as we can. That will leave more time for the negotiations on the quality of the cohabitation, which are going to be long drawn-out. Even a trade deal will be long drawn-out if you want a trade deal with 27 other members. All the other things noble Lords have mentioned, including security and human rights, will take a long time to negotiate—so let us get the Brexit bit out of the way as soon as we can, maybe in six months. The Government may be able to come back after that to consult Parliament about the shape of the cohabitation. Once the Article 50 process is finished, we will be free to discuss among ourselves what to do next. But that distinction has to be made.
The only amendments to the Bill that will be admissible will be to clarify whether we want the parliamentary process to be there between invoking Article 50 and Brexit—whether Parliament should be consulted at all or whether we should give the Government a free hand to get on with the job and finish Brexit as quickly as possible.
The most important thing that will be discussed in the divorce negotiations is the budget. I am on the Financial Affairs Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the European Union and I can say without any doubt that practically no one knows what the bill is going to be. It is a fiendishly complex issue. In October, the Financial Times, no less, said that the bill would be £20 billion. In November it said that it would be £60 billion. I could give your Lordships almost any number between £10 billion and £200 billion on perfectly sound grounds. The problem is that what we pay will be the subject of the hardest negotiation possible. For example, there is a multiannual financial framework which is agreed for seven years—2013 to 2020—and we are going out in the middle of this seven-year budgetary agreement. Therefore, the question is: we agreed to pay something in 2020; do we get out without paying or can they say, “Hey, come on, you made commitments”? Not only that—there may be a committed scheme, say, to launch a road in Estonia for €10 billion, of which only €5 billion may have been spent so far. We have agreed to spend the other €5 billion and pay our share of it. Do we stop paying it?
So there will be a number of complex issues about the budget, and unless we get that right, and get it right early, we will not be able to proceed with the other good things in life that we want out of the European Union. My view is that we need clarity of thought about this problem—and the sooner we do it, the better.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the aim of those who voted for Brexit was, as I understand it, to bring back control to this country. This surely means to restore the supremacy of the UK Parliament. It is then the responsibility of Parliament to ensure that the outcome of the Brexit negotiations is indeed in the best interests of the British people. If we fail in that duty, we will deserve the wrath of our people. It is not the job of the House to prevent the passage of the Bill, as was very clearly explained to us by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. But it is the job of us all to ensure that the Bill is passed only with a clear assurance on its face that Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the deal, or the lack of a deal, and to vote at the end of the negotiations with all options open to us.
Some have argued that to leave the EU with no deal would not be a problem because, of course, we can turn to the WTO system of tariffs. But the EU is about a great deal more than trade, as many noble Lords have already made clear. For most of us, the greatest contribution of the EU has been the peace we have experienced in Europe for half a century—probably the longest period of peace in western Europe for a thousand years. That is quite striking, is it not? For me, nothing is more important. Whatever deal our Prime Minister manages to achieve, will our relationship with the EU continue to provide that security? Parliament will need to consider this vital matter.
The second priority is our security in the face of terrorism and international organised crime. As things stand and as I understand it, the UK leads on four areas of Europol’s work. If we leave the EU, we will need a concession even to have access to the Europol database. Will the deal ensure that Britain is to be treated as an EU member in this regard and will the UK remain central to the work of Europol? If we disappear without any deal at all, we would of course lose all that.
Will the deal ensure a stable and sustainable economy? What will be the implications for the standard of living—particularly of those who are only just managing—of the proposed tariff regime, not to mention the value of the pound? What will be the implications of the deal, or lack of a deal, for our higher education institutions and research, or our pharmaceutical and other key industries? How serious will be the loss of priority access to new medicines for us all? I understand that we would have to take our turn behind Europe, China, the US and other economies bigger than our own. To be sure, if we have no deal at all the consequences in all the above policy areas, and dozens of others, do not bear contemplating.
If there is a deal but it provides little or no assurance on peace, security, counterterrorism and fighting international organised crime, not to mention the future of our universities, the NHS, social care, research and our major industries, then Parliament must have a role in determining the best way forward for the British people. In conclusion to this brief intervention, the issue for this House is indeed the supremacy of Parliament in line with the decision of the Supreme Court, and the need to ensure that Parliament can fully exercise that supremacy in relation to this most important issue of the day for our country.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I addressed this House in a Question on 24 February last year, when I asked for Article 50 to be moved through Parliament at that stage. The Government slapped that down because they thought that they could probably get it through as an order and that it would not have needed to go through as a Bill. The timing was probably a bit early at that stage and I congratulate my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on sticking to her guns in saying that she should wait to the end of March. It has allowed tempers to cool a bit because there was certainly a great shock in the system, which lasted for some time after the referendum.
There have been voices in your Lordships’ House today saying that we are all individuals, that we should use our judgment and that at the end of the day we can override a referendum which gave a not enormous but quite clear majority in favour of leaving the EU. There are great dangers in that. I do not think this is just an option that people can exercise. If Parliament is not seen to reflect the result of a referendum, it puts itself in a very difficult position. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, you give people no option but to take to the streets. People have to move away from Parliament if Parliament no longer reflects their quite clearly expressed views. There are enormous problems in that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that he is definitely going to support the Second Reading of the Bill, but he expressed quite extensive distaste for referenda. He has friends who would agree with him on that all over the EU. They hate referenda too. So what happens? If I happen to be a French, Dutch or German citizen who does not like the EU very much, which is not actually a crime, I am given no option but to vote for the Front National, Wilders or the Alternative für Deutschland, which has become a rather nasty anti-immigrant party. What actually happens is that you shove people who have a quite respectable distaste for the EU and its institutions into extreme parties. What we have done in this country—and it is the object of a certain amount of admiration—is that the established parties have absorbed the wishes of the people as expressed in a referendum. That is surely one of the remarkable things that we have succeeded in doing.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that I am deeply suspicious of all this second referendum stuff, particularly coming from the Liberal Democrats. They have always claimed to be so keen on referenda, yet when they do not get the result they want, they then seem to be deeply dissatisfied and call for another one. That is very EU, as we know. A number of times when there were referenda in the EU, the so-called wrong result came through and everybody was asked to vote again until they came up with the right result, but I do not think that is very British, and it is totally out of step with public opinion in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, raised the issue of EU citizens in this country. The leave campaign made it a point that we want to see the rights of people resident in this country preserved, and I was quite keen that that should happen. We have been hearing in endless different speeches today that the EU is not going to let us carry on with life just as it was before. It wants to punish us for leaving. So if we take unilateral action and preserve the rights of the 3 million EU citizens living in this country, we are exposed to the EU doing something rather unpleasant to the expat Brits who live in Europe. It is not a question of a bargaining chip, it is just sensible that we should negotiate this on both sides. Once we have moved Article 50, I am sure it will be a very high priority to do that and then we can reach agreement on both sides; I am sure that will happen. It is quite significant that these negotiations have, to some extent, already taken place. Who is blocking any deal on this matter? Chancellor Merkel in Germany, who says that no agreement should be reached on this until Article 50 has been moved. That shows enormous compassion for the quite large number of Germans living in the UK, who she thinks do not really matter as long as the rules are followed. Anyway, let us not focus on that, but that is where we are.
The most remarkable speech we heard today was from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, who raised a very interesting question. He said that the eurozone, as we all know now, is a complete disaster. It is only a matter of time before it collapses, but in the meantime, it is totally impoverishing working people in the south of Europe. He asked why leftish parties are so much in support of an organisation that, for some political experiment, actually impoverishes very large numbers of people on the continent. Why should this get the support of Labour members and the Labour Party in this country?
There is the threat as well, of course, that the EU would like to have a trade war with us and not give us the free trade we already enjoy. Well, they sell one and a half times as much to us as we do to them, so presumably they are going to crank up unemployment even further, for political reasons. If these are not good reasons for leaving the EU, I do not know what is.
Lord Glasman (Lab)
My Lords, I am honoured to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and agree with him about the principle of reciprocity being vital in future relations. But if he really wants to discuss how the European and British left got to the position of supporting free movement and a currency regime which had no flexibility whatever and punished workers, I suggest that we have a cup of tea outside—it could take too long at this hour of the night. I have been told that where you appear in the speakers list is up to the Whips—so at least I know where I stand in that regard. It is also a matter of joy to me, perhaps for the first time in the House, to completely support the political leadership of my party. It is remarkable, but I do. I participated on the leave side in the referendum and witnessed a quite joyous affirmation of democracy around the country. There has been a referendum and now a vote in the Commons, and it is entirely appropriate that we work in the shadow of that, and act in a constitutionally appropriate way.
The real reflection I would make on the referendum is that the people of our country made a distinction between free trade and free movement. It has never happened in the history of the world that free trade has been tied to the commodification and movement of people. This is what the EU has brought about and what has led to its undoing here, because it led to the democratic state having no possible control over the movement of people. That is a fundamental issue that relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said. It is a very strange thing for a socialist party not to comprehend fully that people are social beings, tied to the places where they live and to their relationships, institutions and history.
As regards this particular debate, there are three areas of negotiation, including the trade negotiation and the framework agreement, which I mentioned—but this is just triggering the divorce. Divorces are ugly. I recommend that your Lordships read the dissenting judgment in the Supreme Court, which is excellent. It says that there was no marriage in the first place and that it was always a matter for Parliament to make its move. I agree with that. I was very interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said about the three couples who got back together again. We mix in very different social circles, but I am very impressed—I know people who are married who do not have that degree of intimacy. But whenever there is divorce, it is entirely appropriate to ask, “What about the children?”. That is a legitimate question. This is triggering a divorce. It is a time-bound issue, it will be ugly and it is about the distribution of property and all those things.
I was very encouraged by what was said by the Leader of the House in the opening statement. There are clearly six areas where we have got to offer deeper co-operation. We have to offer it in the areas of scientific research, universities, police, counterterrorism, workers’ rights and our mutual interest in the environment. We have to go further and deeper, saying that relations with Europe will be based on reciprocity and that we will play our role. When it comes to the military aspect, I think that NATO is the best area to organise that, but it is clear that we will pay for the continued necessary co-operation in Europe.
At that point we can really raise our sights and talk about what I felt was the dominant factor: the yearning in the country for national renewal and a national purpose, and the way that people felt that that was stymied. As I said, I worked overwhelmingly with trade unions for the leave campaign, and there was just this idea that politics did not matter any more—that it was all legal and administrative and was working within that framework. In those terms, I agree that, as has been said, there was a working class insurrection.
In response to that, the Government brought forward the suggestions about workers on boards. I suggest that we really engage with that so there is a genuine sense of embedding the economy in areas, and I commend the idea of pursuing a vocational economy. We need precisely to heal the relationship with the people who feel that they were utterly disregarded by the previous settlement. That is necessary for civic peace, social order and our national renewal. We should move further towards thinking about regional banks so that there can be some capital for people to have access to in the malnourished regions of the country.
To conclude, it is vital that we just get on with this, initiate the divorce—which is never pleasant—and get through it. Within the framework agreement that is in Article 50, I suggest that we make positive and friendly offers to Europe in the areas that I have described, and then we will see how it goes with the trade negotiation. However, we should remember that those in Europe are committed to a very peculiar thing, which is that free trade requires free movement—and that is precisely what was rejected in the referendum.
Lord Malloch-Brown (CB)
My Lords, I recognise that I stand between those noble Lords who are still graciously here and their beds. Several noble Lords have graciously said to me that I have the graveyard slot, so I do not know what I did to the Whips. One noble friend encouraged me not to take this to heart but rather to buck myself up by imagining that I was again delivering a ministerial wind-up speech, so I thought: “What would I say at the end of a debate like we have had today?”. I would no doubt begin by acknowledging the wisdom of what has been said today and the extraordinary bench strength that this Chamber always has of legal, policy, commercial and other insights into an issue like this. I would indeed congratulate the House on living up to its reputation as a revising Chamber, a place that has the presence of mind to force a pause when necessary on the other place when the blood goes to the latter’s head. We have heard several times today about the size of the majority on the Bill in the other place; I merely remind noble Lords that often it is the largest majorities in the other place that come most to embarrass it later.
But it was as that Minister that I suddenly realised that there was an illogic to the case I was making to myself as I prepared for this contribution. Praise of that kind would of course lead to an encouragement to accept amendments and a willingness that the tradition of this Chamber since Magna Carta meant that we should be open to accepting the wisdom of the people assembled here. I myself, who have returned from a leave of absence precisely because I felt that I should either resign entirely as a Peer or return to this House for perhaps the most important and historic decision that I would participate in during our lifetimes, find it strange to be told that we have no role but to nod the Bill through.
In that sense, as the blood goes back to the boots in the House of Commons, we have a right—not to overrule the other House; I am with all those who have said today that we must acknowledge the referendum result and allow Article 50 to proceed—to demand that cooling-off period in the other House. Its constitutional health is improved when occasionally it is forced to reconsider and think again.
Despite the references to patriotism and the people’s will that we have heard so often in recent days and in our debate today, it is perhaps worth recalling, as I am sure historians such as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, will, that the Bill was not passed in the people’s interest, it was passed in the interest of party. It is a crisis of parties that has got us into the situation we face today. An almost equally divided electorate finds itself irrevocably tipped towards a hard British path in such circumstances, rather than that of compromise and the middle way of a moderate Brexit. I acknowledge the logic of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, in saying that a moderate Brexit is a hard thing to do, but I suspect that when a country is split like this, we are looking more for a Norway solution than for a hard Brexit.
Nevertheless, as we move towards that extreme solution, we need to remember that it is because of the exigencies of party, not people: a ruling party which, for reasons of internal party management under the previous Prime Minister, divided this country on an issue of their own making: Europe. It has now recovered unity, but at a terrible cost to the country. On the other Benches, a party divided and perhaps fatally weakened by the referendum has put up the white flag in the other place. In such circumstances, where party has trumped country, is it so unreasonable to ask that in this House we at least demand that there is a proper, final vote in this Parliament on the terms of Brexit?
I acknowledge that other important issues, such as the rights of Europeans living in this country—a terrible human case though it is—may not belong in the Bill and may be better treated elsewhere. But, on the issue of ensuring that Parliament is not reduced to a yes or we are out vote, a rock or hard place call, a deal or no deal reduction of Parliament to a game show—on that I think we can insist on the right to a final vote. That must be a real vote, with the choice to stay in if the deal is not up to the standards that both Houses demand.
Can we allow this party-political game to trash the rights of other groups such as the families of EU residents here? No, those issues may not be for today—but on this, let this House really be this House and make the amendments that need making, stand up for Parliament, principle and decency—and indeed, I would say, for people and country.